Thirunavukarasu v. The Inspector of Police,

O R D E R The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.113 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was deceived by the petitioners on the promise to sell certain land, however, the petitioners did not have title over the said property and thereby cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. Hence, the case

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5Considering the above facts and circumstances that the dispute is civil in nature, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitionerss in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitionerss 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]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

30.04.2026 Sma To

¶1Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem

¶2The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City.

¶3. The Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Madras. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

.,J.

Sma

30.04.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.Thirunavukarasu 2. Senthilkumar ... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City. (Crime No.113 of 2026). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in connection with Crime No.113 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.U.Gowrishankar For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhilpeean Government Advocate (Criminal Side)