Jerald Arockiaraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ponmalai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Jerald Arockiaraj 2.Sanjutha

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Trichy.

(Crime No. 264 of 2025)

2. Joseph

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.V.G.Vallarasu Chezhiyan Advocate.

For R-1 : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- 1/7

For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 264 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 264 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners received a sum of Rs.4,35,500/- from the defacto complainant in order to arrange job in Kuwait. However, the petitioners neither arranged job abroad nor returned the amount. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that this is second anticipatory bail application and in the first application, the matter was referred to Mediation with condition to 2/7

deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the petitioner also complied with the said condition; however, due to Mediation failed, the earlier application was dismissed. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 264 of 2025. He would further submit that the petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- as per the order of this Court in earlier anticipatory bail application; however, due to Mediation failed, the earlier application was dismissed He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the 3/7

nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that even according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2024; however, FIR has been lodged only in the year 2025 and already the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.

30,000/- before the Trial Court and due to Mediation failed, the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed and also though FIR has been registered in the year 2025, so far no steps have been taken to secure the accused by the respondent police, I am 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-V, Trichy, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

[b] the petitioners shall report before the 4/7

respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

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

(P D B J) 11.06.2026 apd 5/7

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-V, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ponmalai Police Station, Trichy.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10833 of 2026 Date : 11.06.2026 7/7