Anuradha @ Maya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch - I,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Anuradha @ Maya, W/o. Prakash, Thimmapuram Village, Krishnagiri District..

... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - I, Trichy District, Trichy.

(Crime No. 23/2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dilipan Pandian for Mr.Vijayan K, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen for Mr.P.Balamurugan 1/9

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-24 B. For Bail in Crime No.23/2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.23 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner approached the defacto complainant and stated that if he invested in the Iridium (Rice Pulling) business, it would yield huge profits of hundreds of crores. On believing the same, the defacto complainant invested the total amount of Rs.2,25,90,000/- on various dates. Since there 2/9

was no such profit as alleged by the petitioner, he demanded the said amount. Due to which, the accused abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. 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 even as per the FIR, the cheated amount is Rs.2,25,90,000/- . But, the transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is only Rs.15,000/- and the defacto complainant is a History Sheeter in H.S.No.161/2020. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/9

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner cheated the amount of Rs.2,25,90,000/- from the defacto complainant on the pretext of Iridium (Rice Pulling) business and the offences are grave in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the State of Tamilnadu (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and the other accused cheated the amount of Rs.2,25,90,000/- from the defacto complainant on the pretext of Iridium (Rice Pulling) business and the investigation is still pending and offence is grave in nature. Hence, he opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4/9

7.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2022 and FIR was registered on 24.04.2026 belatedly and already the police custody was taken and custodial interrogation was over and the petitioner has no previous cases and the coaccused was granted anticipatory bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 28.04.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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 5/9

Magistrate No.I, Trichy, 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 offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 6/9

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 BNS.

(P D B J) 05.06.2026 VSG 2/2 7/9

TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. 3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - I, Trichy District, Trichy.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

8/9

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9606 of 2026 Date : 05/06/2026 2/2 9/9