Sridevi Jahannath @ Sridevi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb-

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Sridevi Jahannath @ Sridevi

2. M.N.Jahanath

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Tiruchirapalli District (Crime No.4 of 2026 )

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.Vinith for Mr. S.Rajesh Kannan For Intervenor : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 22 crores. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that defacto complainant is the investor-cum-guarantor. The defacto complainant has invested a sum of Rs.12 crores and also has given his property worth several crores as guarantor to the Bank. When the bank came for valuation proceedings the defacto complainant came to know that his property had been taken for sale by the bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. He further submitted that three civil suits are pending between the parties. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 12 crores. Investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. Hence , he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the accused persons A2 and A3 colluded with others and induced the petitioner to mortgage his valuable property and the petitioner stood as guarantor without his knowledge encroached the lands and diverted frunds to their personal accounts and to the account of their associated and thereby cheated him to the tune of Rs.22 crores/- and also inducted to invest money to the tune of Rs. 12.5 crores, thereby committed the offence.

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

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners and the entire case is borne out of records and no previous case is pending against the petitioners and the date of registration of the First Information Report is 30.01.2026 and by that 3/6

time most of the investigation might have been completed and the alleged occurrence took place from the year 2018 onwards and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirapalli, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

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

[e] the petitioners 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 4/6

action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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) 27.03.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Tiruchirapalli District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 3338 of 2026 Date : 27.03.2026 6/6