Ganesh S Nathan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 23743 of 2025 1.Ganesh S.Nathan 2.Angel ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District.
(Crime No.367 of 2025)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.Aayirak K. Selvakumar Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.Koodalarasu for Arivalagan Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 367 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 for 1/6
the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC (318(4) of BNS) in Crime No. 367 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the guise of securing job for the son of defacto complainant's son in Railway Department without examination, the petitioners obtained a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, thereafter they cheated the him. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is not a case of job rocketting. They received the amount for their family purpose only and they returned the above said amount to the defacto complainant. But, the defacto complainant demanded interest for the above said amount. When the same was refused the same, he lodged the present complaint. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. On the guise of job rocketting the petitioners cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of 2/6
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that petitioners promissed the defacto complainant to secure a job to his son and received the above said money. Thereafter they neither secure a job nor returned the money. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, the alleged occurrence took place on 31.08.2019 and the FIR has been registered only on 17.06.2025, there is a huge delay in lodging the complaint, there is no previous case against the petitioners, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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.I, Madurai and on further conditions that: 3/6
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioners 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 action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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) 16.04.2026 TM 4/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District.
(Crime No.367 of 2025) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 23743 of 2025 Date : 16.04.2026 6/6