Nathella Prapana Kumar v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 120(B), 506(i) and 34 IPC in Crime No. 457 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant, who has been running jewellery business in Chennai for nearly two decades, renewed business dealings with the accused in the year 2017. Believing the assurances given by the accused, the defacto complainant supplied 438 gold chains and also paid Rs.2.50 crores in cash. However, the accused neither returned the gold bars nor repaid the amount and the cheques issued by them were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. It is alleged that all the accused colluded together and cheated the defacto complainant causing a loss of about Rs.7 crores and the 3rd accused also criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 6

¶4The learned counsel for the intervenor strongly opposed the application on the ground that the accused persons cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.7 crores.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.Sr.No.15102 of 2026 before the CBCID Court, Egmore. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, though the learned counsel for the intervenor strongly opposed the application on the ground that huge sum of Rs.7 crores had been cheated, from the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.Sr.No.15102 of 2026 before the CBCID Court, Egmore. In such view of the position, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation. Page4 of 6 Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned CCB and CBCID Court, Egmore, Chennai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two 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 Page5 of 6 actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To

1.The CCB and CBCID Court, Egmore, Chennai

¶2The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Team-I, Veppery, Chennai-600007

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o13187oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o13187oofo2026 30-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Nathella Prapana Kumar S/o Mr. Ranganath Gupta, No.7, Lynwood Avenue, Mahalingapuram, Chennai-600034 2. Prasanna Kumar S/o Mr. Ranganath Gupta, No.7, Lynwood Avenue, Mahalingapuram, Chennai-600034 3. Nathella Ranganatha Gupta S/o Mr. Adhikesavalu(Late), No.7, Lynwood Avenue, Mahalingapuram, Chennai-600034 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The state Represented by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, Team-I, Veppery, Chennai-600007 (Ref crime No 457/2018 dated 29.10.2018) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No 457/2018 registered for offences under Sections 420, 120(B), 506(i) and 34 IPC and thus render justice For Petitioner(s): M/S. C.Arunkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side) MR.Jaya Varadhan for Intervenor Page2 of 6