Kidion Raj v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12249 of 2025 Kidion Raj ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.182 of 2025)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chandrakumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Vanchinathan Advocae PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 182 of 2025 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 Section 420 & 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.182 1/6

of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the promise of the petitioner and his wife, the defacto complainant invested money for a sum of Rs.17 lakhs on various dates. Thereafter, initially the petitioner said to have given a sum of Rs.90,000/- as profit to the defacto complainant, subsequently, no money was returned to the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant demanded the petitioner to return his money the petitioner said to have made criminal intimidation. 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. Due to previous enmity, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. 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. On the promise of the petitioner, the defacto complainant invested money in the petitioner's company. Thereafter they cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory 2/6

bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has no previous case. Investigation is still pending.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that his son is working along with the petitioner, thereby he acquainted with him. Based on his confession, he invested money. Thereafter, he did not repay the money or share profits and cheated to the tune of Rs.17 lakhs. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory 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, there was a dispute in respect of share trading, there is no previous case against the petitioner, even according to the prosecution, some of the amount was returned back to the defacto complainant, and also considering all other facts and 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 anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a 3/6

like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[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.

(P D B J) 16.04.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.182 of 2025) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12249 of 2025 Date : 16.04.2026 6/6