N.Rahumanghani v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/03/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL N.Rahumanghani, S/o.Nagoorappa, ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tenkasi District.
Crime No.155 of 2024..
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Jeyamohan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.155 of 2024 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 420 and 406, 294(b) & 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.155 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner purchased gold jewels by participating in a bank auction of defaulted mortgaged jewellery. The petitioner then demanded money from the defacto complainant to redeem the auctioned jewels from the bank. Accordingly, the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 63,40,000/- to the petitioner through banking transactions. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to repay the amount. 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 there is no business 2/6
transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. 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 no previous case is pending against the petitioner. However, 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 has paid a sum of Rs. 63,40,000/- to the petitioner through banking transactions. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to repay the amount. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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 petitioner and also considering the facts 3/6
that the respondent police has filed a status report stating that there are no records to show that there is a business transaction between the parties and though FIR has been registered on 10.08.2024, so far no steps have been taken by the respondent police to secure the petitioner and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or 4/6
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.The Inspector of Police, Chokkampatti Police Station, Tenkasi 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.4561 of 2025 Date : 23/03/2026 6/6