Lavanya v. The State Represented by

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4) of BNS in Crime No.48 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to financial difficulties, the defacto complainant pledged 86 grams of gold jewels at K.V.B.Bank, Page2 of 6 Chidambaram and later redeemed them based on the assurance of the petitioner that she would arrange finance. Believing the petitioner, the complainant handed over 85 grams of jewels to ilaiyaraja of a finance shop, but later suspected the receipt to be fake and that the petitioner along with ilaiyaraja had cheated her. Hence the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a relative of the defacto complainant and she had only helped the defacto complainant in arranging money to redeem the jewels from the bank. According to the petitioner, she had not received the jewels and had merely signed the receipt at the request of the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant and that the allegations made against her are false. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, along with the said Ilaiyaraja had cheated the defacto complainant in respect of the jewels and that investigation is in progress. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 6

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, the case appears to arise out of a loan transaction between the parties. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. Further, even according to the FIR, the occurrence is said to have taken place on

02.05.2025, whereas the FIR has been registered only on 27.01.2026. Considering the long delay in registering the FIR and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram, 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 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 Page4 of 6 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 report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) 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];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09-03-2026 NSL Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Station House Officer, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶3The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram. CRLoOPoNo.o6055oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o6055oofo2026 09-03-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Lavanya ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by Station House Officer, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District. Cr.No.48 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.48 of 2026 on the file of the Station House Officer, Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)