K.Ramasubramanian v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.14167 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD)No.17495 of 2025
1. K.Ramasubramanian
2. Indhumathi ... Petitioners Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.9 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.Kannan Gurusami For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener: Mr.A.Mohan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.9 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.9 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner cheated a sum of Rs. 56 Lakhs/- and for which the petitioners gave the security cheques bearing Nos. 590933, 590934, 590935, 590936, 590937, 590938, 590939, 590940, 590941 and 590942 and the above petitioners failed to pay the said amount. However, the FIR had been lodged through the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District, in Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2024 and the said direction petition is pending, on file of the said Court. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the 2/6
respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.
5.For the same prosecution, Crime No.16 of 2025 was registered. The defacto complainant has again filed 138 case for check bouncing. It seems both the transactions are one and the same. There is a stay in the quash petition in CRL OP(MD)No.18046 of 2025 wherein FIR has been stayed. A specific observation has been made by the Court while granting stay that it is a civil transaction.
6.This Court, vide order, dated 08.09.2025, has already granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners with a condition to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the defacto complainant in two installments. The petitioners have filed CRL MP(MD)No.17495 of 2025 to modify the said condition. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the said condition as prayed for. Hence, the CRL MP(MD)No.17495 of 2025 is allowed as prayed for. 7.Earlier, the matter was referred to mediation and today, is reported that FIR has been stayed in CRL OP(MD)No.18046 of 2025. Therefore, the portion of the order, dated 08.09.2025, wherein the case was referred to mediation is 3/6
recalled.
8.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioners have complied with the conditions imposed in the interim anticipatory bail regularly, the interim anticipatory bail already granted is made absolute and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
9.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on conditions that: [a]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [b]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[c]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 is 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 4/6
[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[e]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
The sureties already produced by the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, shall hold good.
18.11.2025 TMG (1/2) TO
1. Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14167 of 2025 Date : 18.11.2025 (1/2) 6/6