← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/7729/2026granted

Pandiyarajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sivakasi Town

2026-04-29Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

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

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Pandiyarajan ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

Crime No.102/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.102/2026 on the file of the respondent police For Petitioner : S. Surya, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Amalan Advocate.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.102 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that after the demise of the defacto complainant's husband, she pledged her gold jewels at Bavi Sri Gold Finance, Sivakasi to the tune of Rs.5,57,000/- to meet her urgent family expenses and thereafter, she employed in the same Finance company. The petitioner and the other accused misappropriated the pledged jewels by the defacto complainant and disposed of the same without her consent. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the defacto complainant was employed as a cashier in the said Finance Company and was entrusted with complete control over the pledge transactions, issuance of receipts, maintenance of ledger accounts 2/6

and handling of cash and jewels. The dominion over the alleged pledged jewels and records was entirely with the defacto complainant and not with the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and the other accused misappropriated the pledged jewels by the defacto complainant and disposed of the same without her consent and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that the offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and hence, the strongly opposed 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 the defacto complainant is 3/6

none other than the Cashier of the said Finance Company and she herself signed in the receipt of the depositors as well as the Collecting Agency and the alleged occurrence took place on 13.01.2024 and FIR was registered belatedly on 22.02.2026, 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 No.I, Sivakasi, 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.

[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. 4/6

[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.

29.04.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7729 of 2026 Date : 29/04/2026 6/6