M.Satheesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Avaniyapuram

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9946 of 2026 M.Satheesh ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City.

(Crime No.203 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kishore Kumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.Azhagesh PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 203 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.203 of 1/6

2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running used car consulting business. The petitioner has received Rs.8,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and handed over the car to him. Thereafter the defacto complainant found some defects in the car and he handed over the car to the petitioner to rectify the same on his own expenses. Thereafter, the petitioner neither handed over the car nor the money. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Originally the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. For the collateral security only the petitioner given two blank cheques and the RC Book of the Car to the defacto complainant. The same was misused by him. He also repaid a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the defacto complainant on various occasions. The remaining amount only to be paid to him. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioner cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. He did not return the car or pay the money to him. Hence, he vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner has no previous case.

5. Mr.B.Azhagesh, learned counsel would submit that he is going to file intervening application and stated that the petitioner sold the car with defects and thereafter he promised to repay the entire money. However, he did not repay the money. Only pay Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter, he cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he strongly objects the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, considering the dispute between the parties with regard to the sale of Car, even according to the prosecution already part of the amount was returned to the defacto complainant, the petitioner has no previous case and for the date of occurrence 14.06.2024, the case was 3/6

registered on 08.05.2026, and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for 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 4/6

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.

(P D B J) 01.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City.

(Crime No.203 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. 9946 of 2026 Date : 01.06.2026 6/6