Isaac Raj v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296 (b), 318 (4) and 351 (2) of BNS in Crime No.0131 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant is sister-in-law of the petitioner was remanded in a case on 06.09.2025. It is alleged that, during that day, the defacto-complainant handed over her identity card, four Page2 of 6 sovereigns of gold chain and Rs.7500/- in cash. While so, the petitioner pledged the gold chain without her knowledge, so far the petitioner has not returned the chain. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the defacto-complainant is none other than the petitioner's sister-in-law. Even according to the allegations made in the First Information Report, there is a clear recital that the petitioner has pledged a four sovereigns of gold chain at a pawn broker shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said pledged amount has already been spent on legal expenses. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that at the time of remand, the defacto-complainant had already sent Rs.90,000/- for legal expenses. He further contended that the four sovereigns of gold chain was pledged for the petitioner's personal expenses and, till date, he has not returned the chain to the defacto-complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of this application. Page3 of 6

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the intervenor's submission and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7.Though there are allegations and counter allegations, the petitioner and the defacto-complainant are closely related. Furthermore, according to the averments made in the First Information Report, the gold jewellery was pledged to a Pawn Broker Shop. In such view of the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at this juncture. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner voluntarily undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as non-refundable deposit to the defacto-complainant.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), Page4 of 6 with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) directly to the defacto-complainant, to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13404 of 2026 dated 16.07.2026, within four weeks from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the anticipatory bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

(d) The petitioner 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;

(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; Page5 of 6

(f) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 16-07-2026 ep To

1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.

2.The Inspector of Police Pallavaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o13404oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. EP CRLoOPoNo.o13404oofo2026 16-07-2026 (1/2) Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Isaac Raj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Pallavaram police station, Chengalpattu District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police pending proceedings in a Crime No.0131 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, and thus render justice For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthukumarasamy for Mr.B.Ramesh For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr.S.S.Santhosakumar (For Intervenor)