S. Santhosh v. State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections Section 316(4) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 in Crime No.114 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that de-facto complainant is carrying on Page2 of 6 business under the name and style of M/s.Spring Refrigeration, dealing with refrigerator gas cylinders and refrigeration-related materials. It is alleged that certain gas cylinders and materials were unauthorisedly removed from the business premises and sold at a lesser price, resulting in alleged loss to the de-facto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is 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 petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally four accused in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A4. She submits that the petitioner along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.28,80,000/-. She submits that A1 and A2 have already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. She also submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. However, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, from the submissions made by learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the accused persons are employees of the defacto complainant. The allegation against this petitioner is that by creating fake invoices, he along with other accused persons cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.28,80,000/-. It is further seen that A1 and A2 have already been remanded to judicial custody. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the driver of the defacto complainant's company and he has nothing to do with the alleged transaction. Even according to the averments made in the FIR, he is only a driver and he cannot do anything on his own and he must bound by the direction of his superiors. From the submissions made by learned Government Advocate (Cr.side), it is seen that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. In such view of the circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that FIR came to be registered on 04.04.2026, at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a Page4 of 6 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30am and 5.30pm 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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. 23-07-2026 NR Page5 of 6 To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur.

¶2The Inspector of Police T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station, Chennai-600 077.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o19701oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o19701oofo2026 23-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S. Santhosh ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, The Inspector of Police T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station, Chennai-600 077. ..Respondent(s) 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 Crime No.114 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station, Avadi Police Commissionerate, registered for the alleged offence under Section 316(4) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. For Petitioner(s): M/S. J. Manikandan For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)