Senthilvadivel K R @ Senthilvadivel Karuppanchettiar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Senthilvadivel K R @ Senthilvadivel Karuppanchettiar

2. Selvan K K ... Petitioners/Accused No.

1&2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB) Police Station, Trichy District.

Crime No.17/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.17/2026 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioners : S.Meena, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : A.Balaji ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC (Corresponding Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023) in Crime No.17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association and also a senior member and Patron of the Thiruvalluvar District Medical Traders Association. The first petitioner was nominated as the President and the second petitioner was nominated as the Managing Trustee of the said Association. In such circumstances, the office bearers collected a sum of Rs.1 crore for the purpose of constructing an office building for the Association. In connection with the same, the first petitioner agreed to purchase the property in S.No.46/3 measuring an extent of 98 cents at Alanganallur Panchayat, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District for sale consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs and also entered into sale agreement before the Sub-Registrar Office, Uraiyur, Trichy. Despite the petitioners created a false records and represented the 2/7

same before the members of the Association with an intention to get personal gain that the total sale consideration is Rs.85 lakhs. Thereby, they misappropriated a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the association funds and thereby, cheated the members of the Association. 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. He would further submit that the offence is purely civil in nature. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioners misappropriated a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the association funds and the offence is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that the petitioners misappropriated a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the association 3/7

funds and thereby, cheated the members of the Association. The petitioners in order to evade the due process of law, approached this Court by filing a quash petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.5945 of 2026. However, upon considering the materials available on record, this Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage itself on 27.03.2026. Having failed in their attempt to stifle the prosecution at the threshold, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing this petition. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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 there is a dispute between the parties with respect to trusteeship and the alleged occurrence was took place on 24.06.2019, however FIR was registered belatedly on 14.03.2026 and the alleged occurrence was borne out of records and hence, there is no chance to the petitioner to tampering the evidence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

4/7

[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, Trichy, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[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 5/7

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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 29.04.2026 2/2 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB) Police Station, Trichy District.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6440 of 2026 Date : 29/04/2026 2/2 7/7