Rajeshwari v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12161 of 2026 Rajeshwari ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB - Madurai City, Madurai.

(Crime No.25 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajaguru Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Santhanam PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 25 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 465, 468, 471 and 408 of 1/6

IPC in Crime No.25 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons created documents and without verifying the records sanctioned loans and thereby caused loss to the defacto complainant's company to the tune of Rs.1,63,45,029/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. The petitioner has obtained a housing loan from the defacto complainant's company by pledging proper documents. Except that there is no connected to the petitioner with the above said company. The alleged occurrence happened in the year 2021 and the complaint has been lodged in the year 2026. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The accused persons swindled the money to the tune of Rs.1,63,45,029/-. The petitioner has no previous case. Investigation is 2/6

still pending. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that he has to file some typed set of documents. This Court rejected his request, since he has already filed intervening application and made his submissions that the petitioner has shown one property at the time of processing the loan, thereafter, she mortgaged another property, which is having low value. In this way she forged the documents and obtained the loan. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2021 and the complaint has been lodged in the year 2026 and the FIR has also been registered, there is a dispute between the parties, even according to the prosecution, the offences are born out of records, hence, there is no scope to tamper the evidences, co-accused were also granted anticipatory bail, that the petitioner has no previous case and considering all other facts and 3/6

circumstances of the 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 appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday, for a period of four weeks, 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.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 4/6

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) 24.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, CCB - Madurai City, Madurai.

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

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12161 of 2026 Date : 24.06.2026 6/6