Karthik Muniyandi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Karthik Muniyandi ... Petitioner/A3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep BY, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.08 of 2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Navaneetha Raja Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.1722 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-33AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. 1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316, 336(3), 340(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused persons is alleged to have created a forged firm in the name and style of "Senthura Traders" and to have applied for a business loan to the tune of Rs. 3,40,00,000/-. The defacto complainant has also alleged that at the time of processing the loan application, the accused persons obtained blank signed cheques, title documents and signed blank papers from her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 2/8

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. He further submits that the coaccused was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.

Side) fairly submits that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the loan transaction and also submitted that part of the amount has already been paid and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the SARFAESI proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

3/8

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and considering the fact that the dispute between the parties with regard to the money transaction and part of the amount has already been paid and the petitioner has no previous cases and the though the alleged occurrence took place on 02.09.2024, the FIR has been registered belatedly on 07.03.2026 and the SARFAESI proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the co-accused was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, 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 4/8

No.II, 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 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 investigation or trial.

5/8

[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) 16.06.2026 vsg 6/8

TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11263 of 2026 Date : 16/06/2026 8/8