Jayasuriya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Karur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Jayasuriya
2. Santhimani@ IraiThamarai
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station Karur District (Crime No.149 of 2026 )
...Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Muthukamatchi For Intervenor : Mr.B.Saravanan 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.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
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 406,420,468,471 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons being the known person to the defacto complainant informed that they have acquaintance with many government officials working at Secretariat and by saying the words he induced the defacto complainant to purchase lands for lower value and assured to sell the same to TNHB for a higher price with the aid of the known persons and they also promised to give 3⁄4 shares of profit to him and they assured that they will give registered title deeds dated 07.12.2015 and 04.12.2025 and two blank cheques towards security. Believing the words on 05.11.2021 the accused persons gave a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- by cash and thereafter the defacto complainant has no information and thereafter on 28.10.2025 he came to know that the said properties were given as security on 11.04.2022 itself. Hence the case. 2/7
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 the two title deed referred by the defacto complainant were found missing as early as on 03.04.2021 and the cheque leaves were also misplaced earlier. He would further submit that out of business rivalry a false complaint has been given. He would further submit that the first petitioner has undergone treatment for severe external piles last year and also suffered from allergic reaction in the month of November 2025 and was undergoing treatment at Gem Hospital, Chennai and the second petitioner is taking care of the first petitioner for medical conditions. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the accused persons induced the defacto complainant to purchase lands for lower value and assured to sell the same to TNHB for a higher price with the aid of the known persons and they also promised to give 3⁄4 shares of profit to him and thereafter cheated him. Investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. He would further submit that the father of the first petitioner and the husband of the third petitioner was arrested and still in custody. Hence , he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3/7
5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners induced the defacto complainant for payment of money on the pretext that if he invest money in the land they will sell at higher price but however they have not purchased the land and cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, thereby he strongly objected to grant 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 petitioners and considering the fact that there was dispute in respect of money transactions and even as per the First Information Report the defacto complainant himself paid money to the accused persons as investment for purchase of land and the fact that the main accused was secured by the police and further the date of alleged occurrence is in the year 2021 and the First Information Report itself was registered in the year 2026 and also considering the overt act attributed as against the petitioners and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, 4/7
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.I, Karur, 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 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 5/7
[(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.I, Karur 2.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station Karur District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J aav
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 4848 of 2026 Date : 27.03.2026 7/7