Kanagaraj v. The State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kanagaraj S/o.Kothandaraman, 58(1), Bramanar Street, Vandavasi, Tiruvannamlaai. ..Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District. Cr.No.16 of 2023. ..Respondent/ complainant 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 connection with Cr.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Salem District pending investigation. For Petitioner(s): M/S. M.Sneha For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1955, in Crime No.16 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for the purpose of carrying on business and, thereafter, failed to honour the promise made, thereby giving rise to the present complaint. Though the alleged occurrence took place on

21.10.2021, the FIR came to be registered only on 10.08.2023.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and that a civil suit in O.S. No.211 of 2023 is pending before the Sub Court, Cheyyar, in respect of the same transaction. He further submitted that he 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.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that no previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Page3 of 6 learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the fact that according to the prosecution, the petitioner induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for business purposes. However, it is not in dispute that the alleged occurrence is of

21.10.2021, whereas the FIR came to be registered only on 10.08.2023. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a civil suit in O.S. No.211 of 2023 is pending before the learned Sub Court, Cheyyar, between the parties. Having regard to the delay in registration of the FIR, the pendency of the civil proceedings, and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage., this Court is inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 fail to surrender before the concerned Page4 of 6 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police 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 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 02-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Salem.

¶2The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District. Cr.No.16 of 2023.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o16824oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o16824oofo2026 02-07-2026 Page6oofo6