Nagappan Alias Nagaraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Natham

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD)No.5607 of 2026 Nagappan @ Nagaraj ... Petitioner / Accused No.3

Versus

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.105 of 2026) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.105 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police or on his appearance.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondent :

Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.105 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant had borrowed a loan from the petitioner and four other persons and had been paying interest at the rate of 10% on the said amount. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant subsequently repaid the entire loan amount. However, thereafter, the accused persons are stated to have demanded payment of additional interest even after discharge of the loan and allegedly threatened the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that, on 02.03.2026 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons again threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the respondent police have registered a case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

2/7

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that, even after repayment of the loan amount, the accused persons demanded additional interest by threatening the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.3. It is also submitted that, though the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, the nature of the allegations warrants denial of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3/7

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that no one sustained any injury, and taking note the fact that there are no previous cases against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul District, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: (a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

4/7

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of fifteen days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; and (f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

18.03.2026 pal To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul District.

5/7

2.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.

pal

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5607 of 2026 Date : 18.03.2026 7/7