Jeyamary v. The State Of Tamilnadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.14338 of 2025
1. Jeyamary
2. Denishamary ... Petitioners Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by it the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.12 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Sarvangan Prabhu PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.12 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police 1/7
for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.12 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant had been running a hospital in the name of "Dharshini" at Dindigul for the past 10 years. One Balachandran had been working as a Driver cum cashier for the past 17 years. The hospital had maintained 2 bank accounts in Bank of India having Account No. 826725110000006 and in Union Bank of India having Account No. 510101007037917. Balachandran used to collect the money from the hospital and deposit the amount in the above two banks for which they are also maintaining a corresponding Ledger in the hospital. In the month of January 2024, the attitude of the Balachandran had turned doubtful. Immediately, the de-facto complainant had verified the ledger. The de-facto complainant found that the ledger entries were manually altered and the amount entries were materially changed.
Through this fabrication, from 01.01.2024 to 03.02.2025 the sum to the tune of Rs. 1,09,10,000/- were looted by Balachandran. In this connection, the compliant was lodged before the Dindigul Town North Police Station and CSR No.160 of 2025 was issued and enquiry was conducted.
Subbulakshmi had appeared and had settled a sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- in cash and Rs.7,0,000/- in account and promised to settle the entire amount within 2 weeks. But they did not fulfil that promise. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant learnt that some properties were purchased in the name of Balachandran's family (A2) and they had diverted the amount in other schemes in Bank, thereby they have failed to return the amount to the tune of Rs. 83,10,000/-. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. 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 respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.
5.It is seen that out of Rs. 1,09,10,000/-, Rs.26 Lakhs/- was recovered. This Court referred the matter to mediation. Today, it is reported that 3/7
mediation is not settled.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), to the credit of Crime No.12 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul.
No.12 of 2025. The learned Judicial Magistrate or Trial Court shall pass orders regarding entitlement of the said amount in its final order/Judgment. [c]the petitioners shall deposit the property documents, ie., sale deed, dated 04.01.2025, gift deed, dated 12.02.2025 and sale deed, dated 14.03.2025. The petitioners are debarred from dealing with the above said properties until the trial is completed.
[d]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. [e]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[f]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [g]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 [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[h]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
24.02.2026 5/7
TMG TO
1. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14338 of 2025 Date : 24.02.2026 7/7