G Vengadakrishnan v. The State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.187 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant have entered into a business agreement on 05.03.2025 in respect of making of gold jewels and selling the same and there was a dispute between them with reference to sharing the margin of profits after making the jewelry and selling in the market. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, the petitioners and the defacto complainant entered into an agreement on 05.03.2025 and the petitioners have received some amount from the defacto complainant and later, have also paid the same. Therefore, if at all there is any money due as per the Agreement Dated 05.03.2025, as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is for the petitioners to approach the Arbitration Tribunal. He would further submit that in the First Information Report, it has been recorded that 1.5 kgs of gold was given to the petitioners, whereas, in the intervening petition, it has been stated that only money was given to the petitioners.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners have received the gold worth about Rs.2 Crores from the de facto complainant. Unless the petitioners are taken into custody, it is too difficult for the de facto complainant to get back the money. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5Though such objections of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Police have got significance, coming to the present factual position, there was an agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 05.03.2025 where there is an arbitration clause and while looking into the FIR, there is no reference of handing over of gold whereas in the intervening petition, there is a reference of payment of money and not the gold. Further, the petitioners have earlier filed Crl.O.P.No.11636 of 2026 and the petitioners also appeared to have participated in the enquiry. In such circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory 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 made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, 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 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 twice a day at 10.30 am and 5.30 pm, until further orders;

(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.

02.07.2026 ssb To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ssb

02.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.G.Vengadakrishnan 2.K.Ganesh 3.S.Ranjith ... Petitioners Vs. The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.187 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.187 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)