Raju v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Raju 2.Suguna
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Tenkasi.
(Crime No. 12 of 2025) 2.J.Shobana (R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order dated 20.02.2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3697 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Veeravelpandi Advocate.
For R-1 : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.Sankararama Subramanian 1/6
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 12 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No. 12 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and A4 were known each other and A4 introduced A1. Believing the representation of A1 that he stated a business in share market investment and if the complainant invested amount, he will give attractive returns, the complainant, invested a sum of Rs.71,00,000/- in various occasions. However, A1 failed to do so. Hence, the case.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant are present and 2/6
represented that the matter has been settled amicably in the Mediation centre on 22.06.2026 on some terms and conditions.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) confirms that the matter has been settled between the parties before the Mediation center and however, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that the matter has been settled amicably in the Mediation centre, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial 3/6
Magistrate - I, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioners shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the interrogation.
[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 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 4/6
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) 24.06.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate - I, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Tenkasi.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 3697 of 2026 Date : 24.06.2026 6/6