Ganapathi @ Ganapathy Raja v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Anna Nagar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ganapathi @ Ganapathy Raja
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station Madurai.
(Crime No. 13 of 2026 )
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjaysundaram 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. 13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working in a private bank and the petitioner/A1 is a regular customer of the bank. A1 introduced one Manikandan/A2 on 09.10.2025 and he told that he mortgaged some gold jewels in another bank and wanted the assistance of the defacto complainant to redeem the jewel and re-pledge the same in the defacto complainant's bank. Believing the words of A2/Manikandan, the defacto complainant transferred a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- to the bank account of A3/Palanikumar, as per the instruction of A2 on 28.10.2025. Thereafter, he redeemed the jewels and handed over to the defacto complainant to re-pledge. When the defacto complainant verifying the quality of the gold, she found that it was low touch gold. Hence, she informed A2 to redeem the same. However, A2 never redeemed the jewel and cheated a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the 2/7
case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is only an introducer of A2 and there is no specific overt-act as against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 13 of 2026. He further submits that the petitioner has nine previous cases, which are not similar in nature. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed 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 made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that even according to the prosecution, the money was not paid to the petitioner and the money was paid to the account of one Palanikumar/A3 and this petitioner is only an introducer of A2 and in turn, A2 introduced A3 and however, A1 introduced A2 on 09.10.2025 and the money was transferred on 28.10.2025 and on the date of transfer of money to the account of A3, the petitioner was not present in the place of occurrence and entire transaction is between the defacto complainant and A2 and A3 and though the petitioner has nine previous cases, the same are not similar in nature and in all cases, the petitioner was granted bail, 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-VI, Madurai, and on further conditions that: 4/7
[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.
[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) 10.04.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-VI, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7185 of 2026 Date : 10.04.2026 7/7