Prakash v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Prakash, S/o.Arumugam, No.1/144,Kaveripattinam, Nedungal (Post) Krishnagiri District..

... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy District.

Crime No.23/2026..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth, 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 ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-24AB For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.

23/2026 on the file of the respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.23 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with A1 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 2/9

dates. Since there was no such profit as alleged by the petitioner and A1, 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 A1 and the defacto complainant is only Rs.15,000/- and the defacto complainant is a History Sheeter in H.S.No. 161/2020. He would further submit that the petitioner suffered deaf and dumb. He would further submit that the co-accused was already granted anticipatory bail and the main accused was released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant 3/9

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner along with A1 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 anticipatory 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 anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4/9

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 and also considering the fact that the petitioner has no previous cases and the investigation might have been completed and the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail and the main accused was arrested and released on bail and the petitioner suffered deaf and dumb and hence, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate 5/9

No.I, Trichy, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and 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 6/9

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 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) 05.06.2026 VSG 2/2 7/9

TO 1.The learned 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.

8/9

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9966 of 2026 Date : 05/06/2026 2/2 9/9