Thanigavel v. The 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 Section 318(4) of BNS and Section 16 of Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act in Crime No.18 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had pledged her gold ornaments with Credit Fine Survey, a jewellery pawn shop, on different occasions and availed loans thereon. It is alleged that, when she approached the pawn shop to redeem the pledged jewels by repaying the loan amount, the petitioner and the staff repeatedly postponed the return of the jewels. Subsequently, the petitioner is alleged to have informed the defacto complainant that the pledged jewels had been lost and could not be returned. It is further alleged that no prior notice was issued before the alleged auction of the pledged jewels and that the petitioner intentionally refused to return the jewels with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 5

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent Police, reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that, in the present case, gold jewels weighing 299 grams, valued at about Rs.20 lakhs, are alleged to have been cheated. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said jewels were auctioned. This Court, by order dated 01.07.2026, directed the petitioner to produce the records evidencing the auction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to produce any records to substantiate the alleged auction. Hence, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to consider the present anticipatory bail petition.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07-07-2026 kv Page4 of 5 To

1.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Cuddalore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o16773oofo2026

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. kv CRLoOPoNo.o16773oofo2026 07-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Thanigavel ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Cuddalore District. Crime No.18 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent Police concerned in Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ******