Sheik Abdullah v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sheik Abdullah ... Petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CCD-III Police Station, Dindigul.
Crime No. 41 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.S. Haroon Rasheed, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023, and Section 66(b) of the Information Technology Act, in Crime No.41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, under the pretext of a "digital arrest," dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to transfer a sum of Rs.50 lakhs through online transactions, thereby allegedly cheating the defacto complainant. 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 this is the second anticipatory bail petitioner and earlier petitioner filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 09.04.2026 and even according to the prosecution case, the amount of Rs.16 lakhs was disburse to the account of NST Traders and the respondent police has not identified the said account, which the amount 2/6
has been transferred and the alleged amount has not been utilized by this petitioner and the petitioner is regularly appearing before the Investigating Officer. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that this is the second anticipatory bail petitioner and the offence committed by the accused is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and even according to the prosecution case, the amount of Rs.16 lakhs was disburse to the account of NST Traders and the respondent police has not identified the said account, which the amount has been transferred and transferred the amount has not utilized by this petitioner and the alleged occurrence was took place on 10.11.2025 and FIR was registered on 29.12.2025, 3/6
however, the respondent police has not taken any steps to secure the accused and further, by this time, the material part of the investigation might have been completed and the respondent police has not yet been taken steps to secure the accused and the petitioner also appeared before the Investigating Officer for enquiry, 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 No.I, Dindigul, 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, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 4 weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
4/6
[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 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.
19.06.2026 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J DSS To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, CCD-III Police Station, Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11402 of 2026 Date : 19/06/2026 6/6