M.Thangapandi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.M.Thangapandi 2.T.Vijayakumari
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No. 7 of 2025 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sangeetha Advocate.
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. 7 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of IPC in Crime No. 7 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused were running Diwali Chit fund and the defacto complainant joined in that chit and paid a sum of Rs.38,000/-. However, the accused did not return the money. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that totally 300 victims out of which for 260 victims, the amounts were settled. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and the petitioners have no previous case. 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 on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and consideirng the facts that though the occurrence took place in the year 2023 and FIR has been registered only on 03.03.2025, so far no steps have been taken to secure the accused and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, 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 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 3/6
learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Dindigul, 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 [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. 4/6
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 30.03.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6182 of 2026 Date : 30.03.2026 6/6