J. Gunasegaran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pattukottai Taluk
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL J.Gunasegaran
...Petitioner
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District (Crime No. 88 of 2026 )
...Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vaikunth For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambisselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 88 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2 who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,170, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No. 88 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his son represented to the daughter -in -law of the defacto complainant that the first accused is working in London in higher post of Indian Foreign Services and both the accused as running ADS Infrastructure Limited they used to sponsorship and send persons to England. Believing the said words the daughter-in -law of the defacto complainant was sent to England through the accused and she went to England through accused and thereafter when she went to London Airport. Despite frequent contact with the accused they did not pick up and often called and they cheated and she was detained in England for 45 days. Thereafter the defacto complainant came to know the first accused contacted the fake company and daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.40 lakhs and they also incured expenses for years and they got mental agony . When the defacto complainant asked the accused to return the money the second 2/7
accused used obscene words and threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the above First Information has been registered for the purpose of pressurizing the petitioner to withdraw the legal proceedings in claim number M04CL390 initiated by the petitioner before the Court at London. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the there is a dispute between the parties in respect of money transactions and also cases are pending in the Court at London and the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/7
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2022 and however complaint has been lodged and the First Information Report has been registered in the year 2026 and even as per the prosecution A1 is the main accused and he was arrested and released on bail and this petitioner is the father of the main accused and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and further it was a money dispute between the parties and already case is pending before the United Kingdom for the same dispute, hence this Court is 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
4/7
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[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) 17.04.2026 aav 5/7
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai 2.The Inspector of Police, Pattukottai Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur 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.6786 of 2026 Date : 17.04.2026 7/7