G.Suraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Batlagundu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 02/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL G.Suraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.
Crime No.213 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.213 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Sangeetha R, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, 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 offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.213 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the defacto complainant by giving a false promise that he would secure a job in abroad for her sister. Thereafter, he neither secured a job nor repaid the amount. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 co-accused (A2) was granted anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is a money dispute between the parties and the petitioner 2/6
cheated a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the defacto complainant by giving a false promise that he would secure a job in abroad for her sister and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 2 previous cases similar in nature. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail.
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 there is a money dispute between the parties and the alleged occurrence was took place from 18.07.2024 to 23.02.2025 and FIR was registered on 09.05.2026 very belatedly and already the co-accused was granted bail and though the petitioner has 2 previous cases similar in nature, in those cases, he was granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be 3/6
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, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days, and thereafter as and when required for the 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 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 4/6
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.
02.06.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul 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.9476 of 2026 Date : 02/06/2026 6/6