Karuppusamy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Keeranur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Karuppasamy
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station Dindigul.
(Crime No. 104 of 2026)
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 104 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 104 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner approached the defacto complainant in order to redeem the two sovereigns gold chain, which was pledged in Co-operative credit society. By believing the words of the petitioner that after redeeming the same, he would sell the same to the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.81,000/- and the same was redeemed and sold to the defacto complainant. On 15.05.2026, when the petitioner examined the same, he came to know that the said jewel was not made out of gold. On 16.05.2026, when the defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2/7
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. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
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 296(b), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 104 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case. 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 petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of pledging the 3/7
jewels and even according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence took place on 15.05.2026, FIR has been lodged only on 04.06.2026 and the petitioner has no previous 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, 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, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of 4/7
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.
(P D B J) 23.06.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11286 of 2026 Date : 23.06.2026 7/7