Deepa Ganesan v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police (Crime)

ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336, 338, 340 &61(2) of BNS and 66C & 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.0213 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are about 9 accused and the allegation against the petitioners is that he received certain Apple products and sell it in grey market and cheated to the tune of Rs.14.00 crores. He would further submit that A1 has already been granted anticipatory bail and that the first petitioner is the sister of A1 and the petitioners 2 & 3 are parents of A1. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶3The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would strongly oppose the grant of anticipatory bail, however, would contend that there is no criminal antecedent against these petitioners. Further, he has not objected the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that A1 was already granted on bail vide order dated

23.07.2026 in Crl.OP.No.18150 of 2026.

4.While looking into the factual position, this Court, after thoroughly discussing the entire facts, has observed as follows:- Page3 of 6 "6. Though such allegations have been made, it is the admitted case of the de facto complainant that goods were supplied to the petitioner; however, their primary grievance is that the petitioner created two fake entities. Admittedly, there were transactions between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, and it appears that the petitioner has also paid certain amounts to the de facto complainant. In the course of these business transactions, a sum of Rs.14 crores is currently due.

¶7From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the intervenor as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court finds that there were business dealings between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. Despite certain allegations regarding the creation of fake entities, considering the aforementioned peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions."

¶5In view of the above observation, this Court has already enlarged A1 on bail, these petitioners, who according to the prosecution have received some money from A1. In such view of the factual position, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are entitled for parity as that of A1. Hence, this Court is inclined to extend parity to the petitioners. Page4 of 6

¶6Accordingly, 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 XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that each of the petitioner 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 fail 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., 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 Page5 of 6 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.

7.This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly. 29-07-2026 KMI To

1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police (Crime) R-1, Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o19237oofo2026

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. KMI CRLoOPoNo.o19237oofo2026 29-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Deepa Ganesan D/o.R.Ganesan, 2. Ganesan S/o.Rangan, 3. Manonmani W/o.Ganesan, ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police (Crime) R-1, Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai. Crime No.0213/2026. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime no.0213 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, R-1, Mambalam Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sharukumar S I For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** Page2 of 6