Thirupurasundari @ Gayathri v. State Rep.By

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 314 and 3(5) of the Bharativa Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.94 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the tenant and the petitioners are the landlord. It is alleged that the de facto complainant incurred substantial expenditure towards renovation of the building where a hospitality business was proposed to be carried to a tune of Rs.50 lakhs. Further, when a dispute arose between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, the petitioners failed to renew the lease in favour of the de facto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that false claim made that certain renovation were made in the building for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant 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.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that only upon the promise made by the petitioners, the de facto complainant has invested Rs.50 lakhs and due to the wrong inducement, the de facto complainant had lost a huge sum. He further submitted that if the Page3 of 6 petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would tamper the witnesses. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, though there is serious objection by the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry), the 1st petitioner is aged about 44 years and the entire issue surfaces in furtherance of a landlord - tenant dispute. Hence, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry, 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: Page4 of 6

(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 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. 10-06-2026 SHL/NSL To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry

¶2The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Page5 of 6 Puducherry.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o14534oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. SHL/NSL CRLoOPoNo.o14534oofo2026 10-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Thirupurasundari @ Gayathri 2. Lakshman Suriya ..Petitioners Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Puducherry. Cr.No.94 of 2026. ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.94 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Puducherry, for the alleged offences under sections 318(4), 314 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. For Petitioners: Ms.Anjali For Respondent: Ms.G.DJearany Government Advocate (Puducherry)