Rajendran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Sedapatti
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.21645 of 2025 1.Rajendran 2.Kannan 3.Vellusil Prabakaran 4.Palmanickam 5.Murugaiah ... Petitioners Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.155 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.Subash Babu Senior Counsel for M/s.Subash Law Office For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor: Mr.J.Jeyakumaran PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.155 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 143, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.155 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that that the defacto complainant and one Sundarakumar are partners engaged in the granite business in the name Vajra Granite Company, operating at Chennai and Bangalore. His Partner, Sundarakumar, owns a granite quarry measuring approximately two acres situated at Vinnamangalam Village, Ambur. Due to a financial crisis affecting their business operations, they decided to sell the quarry. At that stage, one Vinothkumar and Siva approached them, stating that they could arrange a private loan of up to Rs.30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Crores only). They introduced the 3rd and 4th petitioners, who are land brokers, and subsequently, the 3rd and 4th petitioners introduced the 1st petitioner, asking the complainant to meet him. On 10.04.2024, the defacto complainant met the 1st petitioner, who assured that he could arrange a loan up to Rs.30,00,00,000/- and demanded Rs. 48,00,000/- as consideration. Accordingly, on 12.04.2024, the defacto complainant deposited Rs.24,00,000/- into the account of 2nd petitioner who is 2/6
the own brother of the 1st petitioner. However, thereafter, no loan was arranged, nor was the said amount returned. When the complainant approached the 1st petitioner on 19.09.2025 seeking repayment, all the accused threatened him with dire consequences. 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. Further, the 1st petitioner has 7 previous cases and the 3rd petitioner has 3 previous cases.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the 3/6
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, Peraiyur, 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.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Only) jointly, to the credit of Crime No.155 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
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.155 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 2 to 5 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required. The 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when 4/6
required.
[d]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[e]the petitioners 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.
02.02.2026 TMG TO 1.Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai 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.21645 of 2025 Date : 02.02.2026 6/6