Anbarasan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Papanasam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.12.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.20970 of 2025 Anbarasan ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, Papanasam Police Station, Papanasam Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.392 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.K.Prabakaran For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.392 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(3) and 318(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.392 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant de-facto complainant a bought combined harvester (Full Feeding) MOPDEL-41Z/605 ENG No.521014396 CHASSIS NO- GMZ101265008, harvest machine for rental purpose. The accused No.1 was working as a driver with the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant was advised by one Vignesh to rent the vehicle to Andra in harvest time to earn money. Therefore the de-facto complainant informed about this to accused No. 1 and also he agreed to work in Andra and also said that every hour would be charged Rs.2700/- and further he said that he would calculate and often hand over the amount to the de-facto complainant. On 07.04.2025 the vehicle was handed over to the accused No.1 while the accused No.2 gave guarantee to the accused No. 1. One Seeni is an agent in Andra Pradesh. He used the vehicle to harvest in the field. The accused No.1 is a driver of the vehicle in the Andra Pradesh also. The Accused No.1 received Rs.3,38,000/- from the agent Seeni for repair work of vehicle. 2/7
The de-facto complainant received Rs.1.67,000/- from the agent Seeni as advance. As per the calculation of the agent, the vehicle had ran 220 hours. If it is calculated as Rs.2700/- per hour, the total amount is Rs.5,94,000/-. The calculation memo was sent by the agent Seeni to the de-facto complainant. It is stated that Rs.3,38,000/- was be received by the accused No.1 but he did not give that amount to the de-facto complainant and did not give a tools box worth about Rs.1,20,000/- and also the harvest vehicle worth about Rs.8,30,000/- is kept by accused No.1 without producing to the de-facto complainant. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature.
3/7
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioner 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 petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only), to the credit of Crime No.392 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam. After receipt of entire amount, the learned Judicial Magistrate, shall deposit the said amount in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and renew them periodically until the final order/Judgment is passed in the case in Crime No.392 of 2025.
order/Judgment.
[c]the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [d]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[e]the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f]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].
[g]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
08.12.2025 TMG 5/7
TO 1.District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Papanasam Police Station, Papanasam, Thanjavur 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.20970 of 2025 Date : 08.12.2025 7/7