← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/684/2026allowed

S.Balaranganathan @ Bala v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

2026-03-23Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/03/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Balaranganathan @ Bala, S/o.Singaravelu @ Singaram, ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.

Crime No.44 of 2025.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. K.Palmurugan, For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Samidurai PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.44 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.44 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the other accused approached the defacto complainant and demanded a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- for starting a business. Believing their representation, the defacto complainant obtained a loan from a bank and paid a sum of Rs. 72,18,000/- to the accused. The petitioner and A2 repaid a sum of Rs. 43,30,320/-, and the remaining balance has not been paid so far. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is 2/6

also a one of the victim and he was cheated by A2. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that there is a money dispute between the parties regarding the business transaction. He further submits that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that believing the words of the accused persons, the defacto complainant obtained a loan from a bank and paid a sum of Rs. 72,18,000/- to the accused. The petitioner and A2 repaid a sum of Rs. 43,30,320/-, and the remaining balance has not been paid so far. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/6

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and also considering the facts that there is a money dispute between the parties regarding the business transaction and though FIR has been registered on 30.12.2025, so far no steps have been taken to secure the petitioner and as per the FIR, the part of the amount was paid to the defacto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai District, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

4/6

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 23.03.2026 TTA To 1.Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL,J TTA

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.684 of 2026 Date : 23/03/2026 6/6