K.Subhakar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 23752 of 2025 K.Subhakar ... Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, DCB, Trichy. Crime No.18 of 2025.

2.Deepan

...Respondents/Complainants

(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court dated 19.12.2025) For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoj Advocate.

For R1 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) For R2 : Mr.S.Ram Sundar Vijayraj Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 18 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for 1/6

the offences punishable under Section 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.18 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Joint Secretary of the Non Delta Farmers and Rice Mill Federation, Kilianallur, Trichy district. For the purpose of purchasing sugar, paddy, rice, and wheat from farmers and wholesalers, the defacto complainant approached the petitioner. He demanded Rs.37 lakhs for purchasing sugar as initial payment. Thereafter, he assured that he would send the sugar in a truck. But, did not do so. Thereafter, he issued four cheques for Rs.44 lakhs. When the same were presented for collection, they were returned as insufficient funds. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner returned Rs.10 lakhs to the defacto complainant. Threafter, his account was freezed by the respondent. Hence, he is unable to repay the same. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioner cheated a sum of Rs.44 lakhs from the petitioner under the guise of selling sugar. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Mediation also going on in this matter. Investigation is also still pending. There is no previous case against the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that pending the case the matter was referred to the mediation centre, where a part amount was settled and remaining Rs.17 lakhs to be paid by the petitioner. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to repay the remaining amount of Rs.17 lakhs and seeks time for payment.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, already part of the amount namely Rs. 3/6

27 lakhs have been settled through mediation, remaining Rs.17 lakhs to be paid by the petitioner, the petitioner undertakes to pay the money within a period of one month and also the FIR has been registered in the year 2025, by this time the material part of the investigation might have been completed, there is no previous case against the petitioner, considering the nature of transaction between the parties, and also considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am 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, Trichy, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall repay the balance amount of Rs.17 lakhs to the defacto complainant within a period of one month from the date of execution of suretied;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday until further orders; [d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

4/6

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 15.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, DCB, Trichy. Crime No.18 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. 23752 of 2025 Date : 15.04.2026 6/6