Sahayaseeli v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Sahayseeli

2. Vinitha 3.Vishal @ Vishalmenan

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Trichy District (Crime No. 24 of 2026 )

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sakthivel For Intervenor : Mr. A.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

2/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 296(b) of BNS in Crime No. 24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioners along with other accused jointly cheated the defacto complainant under the guise of obtaining job for his wife in the Government department. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioners herein are daughter and wife of A1 and there is no money transactions between these petitioners and the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that these petitioners along with one Selvaraj approached the defacto complainant for getting job in the municipal administration and water 3/8

supply department for the post of Junior Engineer for the wife of the defacto complainant. All the accused canvassed the and defacto complainant and demanded Rs.35 lakhs and the defacto complainant also paid the said amount on various occasions and thereafter they failed to get job. In the meantime, the accused Selvaraj died on 28.11.2025. The accused persons neither paid the money nor secured the job , thereby the defacto complainant lodged complaint and there are records to show the payments made by the defacto complainant to the petitioners. All the petitioners received money and they have committed serious offence and the investigation is still at initial stage , thereby he strongly opposed togrant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant they registered First Information report and the investigation is in initial stage and as per the investigation the defacto complainant paid money to the accused persons for securing job to the wife of the defacto complainant and strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4/8

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

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences and the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2021 and the First Information Report has been registered on 01.05.2026 and prior to that notice was also issued by the petitioners and the petitioners also appeared before the police for investigation and even according to the First Information Report there are general allegations in respect of payment of money to all the accused and though some payment were made to one Selvaraj he died and so far as these petitioners are concerned there is no specific overt act about the quantum of money paid to each of the accused this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy District on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of 5/8

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. [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 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].

6/8

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 04.06.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Trichy District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9831 of 2026 Date : 04.06.2026 8/8