Arunkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 8464 of 2026 1.Arunkumar 2.Birundha ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy City.

(Crime No.13 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Yogeswaran Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Jeyakumar 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 :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) & 49 of BNS, in Crime 1/6

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 running a Bookshop in Trichy. The 1st petitioner is her employee for 13 years. All of sudden he informed that he will left the job. On verification of accounts, she came to know that the 1st petitioner along with his wife, who is the 2nd petitioner, swindled the money from her book shop and has opened a new book shop at his own as if it is the sister concern of the defacto complainant's book shop and caused a loss of Rs.2 crore to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. At the request of the defacto complainant only the 1st petitioner continued the shop of the defacto complainant. However in the month of September 2025, he quit his job and made a request to the defacto complainant to settle the arrears of salary and other benefits to him. But, she refused to do so. Hence, the 1st petitioner initiated proceedings before Labour Court, Trichy. The defacto complainant only insists the 1st petitioner to 2/6

continue his service in her shop while he is running his own business. By this time, she lodged the present false complaint against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioners have swindled the money to the tune of Rs.2 crore of the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor seeks adjournment to defend the case. However, this Court declined to grant adjournment, sicne already ample chances were given to him, perused the records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, these petitioners are none other than the ex-employees of the defacto complainant, already there is a dispute between them in respect of the employment, and Labour Court proceedings also initiated, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am 3/6

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

[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 at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for 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 petitioners released on bail by the learned 4/6

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) 02.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy City.

(Crime No.13 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8464 of 2026 Date : 02.06.2026 6/6