Satheesh v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) of IPC in connection with the Cr. No.8 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 7

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused and fabricated various documents of the borrowers by colluding with them and obtained various types of loan from the defacto complainant's bank and swindled the same. In one case, A2 was granted Rs.8 lakhs loan, out of which, A2 as a borrower, received only Rs.2 lakhs and the remaining 6 lakhs given to A9. Similarly in another case, A8 was given a loan for a sum of Rs.8,95,000/- and the Branch Manager has received Rs.50,000/-. Likewise there was collusion, and collection of kickbacks in granting loan. Hence, the complaint was lodged.

¶3Earlier this Court, on 08.12.2025 had dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner with the following observation. "7. I have also gone through the statements recorded from the arrested accused and it revealed that both the petitioners herein have received a kickbacks, and in one case, A9 received Rs.6 lakhs from the total loan amount of Rs.8 lakhs. Since investigation is pending and huge amount alleged to have been received as a loan by way of fabrication of records, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." Page3 of 7

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only based on the confession statement of A1, petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this case. Further, the co-accused, Ashokan (A7), was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.33373 of 2025. Since the petitioner is also similarly placed to the said co-accused, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterating that the investigation is still in its nascent stage. She further submitted that the petitioner, while serving as the Bank Manager, was actively involved in the fabrication of official records and had illicitly collected a Rs.50,000/- as a kickback.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor raised strong objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the loan was advanced to various persons, however no property has been mortgaged in favour of the bank and thereby cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.62,71,950/-. Page4 of 7

¶7Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

8.This Court, upon considering the nature of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, finds that the petitioner being a Bank Manager has indulged in the fabrication of official records and collection of Rs.50,000/- as a kickback. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No. 8 of 2025, and further subject to the following conditions:

¶9Accordingly, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No. 8 of 2025. On such deposit, 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 made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: Page5 of 7 [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Station, daily at 10.30 am., for a period two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]. [e] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023. 03-02-2026

(½) JAI To

¶1The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Vellore, Vellore District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o2024oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. JAI CRLoOPoNo.o2024oofo2026 03-02-2026 (1/2) Page6oofo7 Page7 of 7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Satheesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Vellore, Vellore District. Cr.No.8 of 2025. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.8 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Vellore, Vellore District. For Petitioner(s): For Intervenor: Mr.Vinodh Kumar M/s.A.S.Neela Narayani For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)