Uma Maheswari v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Uma Maheswari

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Madurai City (Crime No.71 of 2025)

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raghul Priyan For Intervenor : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.71 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4),61(2)(a),316 and 3(5) of BNS in Crime No.71 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons insisted the defacto complainant to invest in online trading company which is run by one Saravanakumar. Believing the same, the defacto complainant had invested Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.11.2022 and his mother/Geetha invested Rs. 10,00,000/- to one Balasubramanian and he had also invsted Rs.25,00,000/- and thereby the members of the family had invested Rs.8,09,00,000/- and now the trading company had cheated in and around Tamil Nadu by not returning the money. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against her. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime. He would further submit that the petitioner only acted as commission agent for the business 2/6

of the main accused and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by stating that huge amount involved in this case is very huge.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused persons had cheated the victims to the tune of Rs.8,09,00,000/- The amount involved in this case is very huge and the offence committed by the accused is grave in nature. He would further submit that investigaiton is pending. Hence, he opposes to grant 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 considering the fact that the petitioner only acted as commission agent for the business of the main accused and she is neither Director of the company nor actively participated in the business of the company and also the fact that the date of occurrence is 08.11.2022 and the First Information Report 3/6

has been registered on 10.12.2025 with a delay of three years and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and further she has also filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court, Madurai this Court is 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 like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, 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 4/6

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) 20.04.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai District 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Madurai City 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 23666 of 2025 Date : 20.04.2026 6/6