D.Chinnamurugan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL D.Chinnamurugan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram Police Station, Madurai City.
Crime No. 196/2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 196 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Na.Mani Maran, Advocate.
For Res pondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 294(b), 420 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.196 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are friends. The defacto complainant agreed to purchase the property of the petitioner comprised in S.No.382/1B at Bethaniapuram for sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs and given the said amount to the petitioner on various dates. The petitioner also executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant on 16.09.2019. When the complainant and the petitioner tried to measure the property, one Rajendran has raised objection stating that the alleged property is belong to him. A1 promised that he would return the entire amount and also executed a confirmation deed on 20.09.2020. On 17.07.2019, when the same was demanded by the defactco complainant, the petitioner and A2 are said to have abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and has was falsely implicated in this case and 2/6
he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the matter has been settled between the parties through mediation and the petitioner has no previous case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the property originally belong to one Rajendran. The petitioner informed the complainant that the property is belong to him and also received a sum of Rs.6 lakh from the complainant with an intention to cheat him. However, he fairly conceded that the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner has no previous case.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and the transsaction between the parties and already the matter has been settled between the parties through mediation and as per the settlement, the defacto complainant has agreed to receive Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.1.25 lakh has already been paid to 3/6
the defacto complainant and the remaining amount has to be paid on or before 30.04.2026 and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, 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.VI, Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday 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 4/6
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.
09.04.2026 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J DSS To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8983 of 2025 Date : 09/04/2026 6/6