P.Nagarajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kulithalai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL P.Nagarajan ...Petitioners/Accused No.3 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District.
(Crime No. 129 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.K.Gokul Advocate.
For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener :Ms.Sangeetha for Mr.Sivasubramanian PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.129 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.129 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was made an introduction to the petitioner through A1 and A2 stating that the defacto complainant can make investment for cryptocurrency and real estate business. On believing their words, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to the petitioner and after that, the petitioner returned a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the defacto complainant.
Thereafter, he neither repaid the balance amount nor helped the defacto complainant in cryptocurrency and real estate business. Hence, this case.
2/8
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioner for real estate business. Thereafter, the petitioner neither paid any amount nor helped him run real estate business. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant by receiving a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. 3/8
He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous cases and the investigation is still pending and the offences are grave in nature. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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 petitioner and also considering the fact that at this stage, the material part of the investigation might have been completed and the alleged occurrence took place on 19.07.2019, however the date of FIR is on 10.03.2026 and hence, there is a huge delay in filing FIR and the petitioner has no previous cases and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 4/8
[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 No.II, Kulithalai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafer, as and when required for interrogation.
[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 5/8
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 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) 22.04.2026 vsg 6/8
To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7872 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026 8/8