Ariya Raja Boopathy v. State Rep by Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner/A4, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 108, 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.182 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2According to the prosecution, the entire allegation is against A1 to A3 who promised to secure a Government Job for the post of APRO for the defacto complainant's husband and thereby, received a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- from him. They also issued an appointment letter to him. After receiving the said forged appointment order, when the defacto complainant's husband went to Chennai, he came to know that the appointment order was fake. While returning and on enquiring with A1 to A3, this petitioner, who is the father-in-law of A1, promised to repay the said amount to the defacto complainant's husband. Despite the passage of time, the amount was not returned. As a result, the defacto complainant's husband committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He would further submit that the petitioner is aged about 73 years. As the defacto complainant's husband repeatedly demanded the money from A1, the petitioner promised him that he would repay the amount. Beyond that, there is no allegation against this petitioner. He would further submit that A1 was already released on bail in Crl.O.P.No.18354 dated 16.07.2026. He would submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 6

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the anticipatory bail application by reiterating the prosecution case and fairly submitted that this petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that A1 was already released on bail in Crl.O.P.No.18354 dated

16.07.2026.

¶5In such view of the circumstances and considering the limited overt act alleged against this petitioner and the age of the petitioner and the fact that A1 had already been released on bail, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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, Valangaiman, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 conditions that: Page4 of 6 [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 suretyship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] 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; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; [g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

16.07.2026 smv Page5 of 6 To

¶1The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o18753oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. smv CRLoOPoNo.o18753oofo2026

16.07.2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ariya Raja Boopathy ..Petitioner/A4 Vs The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur District. Crime No.182 of 2026. ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.182 of 2026 on the file of the respondent, pending investigation. For Petitioner : Mr.Swami Subramanian For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)