Manochitra v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kayathar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24/03/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Manochitra, W/o.Babu, ... Petitioner/Accused Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Kayathar Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.127/2025..
2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District.. ... Respondents/Complainants For Petitioner : Mr. Mamtha S, For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Prabhu 1/7
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.127/2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
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.127 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had invested a sum of Rs. 66,46,000/- with the first accused for the purpose of business and the accused persons had promised to pay profits thereon. It is further alleged that the accused failed to pay the promised profit amount and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she was falsely implicated in this case and she is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not 2/7
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and no specific overt act has been mentioned in the FIR against the petitioner. He would further submit that co-accused granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is a money dispute between the parties and the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit 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 would submit that the first accused running the real estate business and the defacto complainant deposited some amount and the accused persons had promised to pay profits thereon. It is further alleged that the accused failed to pay the promised profit amount and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/7
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of money transaction and co-accused also released on anticipatory bail by this Court and no specific overt act has been mentioned in the FIR against the petitioner and also 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 learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kovilpatti, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the first 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.
4/7
[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) 24.03.2026 TTA 5/7
To Inspector of Police, Kayathar Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
Crime No.127/2025..
2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thoothukudi District..
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL,J TTA
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5208 of 2026 Date : 24/03/2026 7/7