R Murugadoss v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.273 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had entered into sale agreement on 15.03.2024; that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.82,00,000/- and the defacto complainant had paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as advance amount and that the petitioners/A1 and A2 neither executed the sale deed nor returned the money. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

¶6The learned counsel for the Intervenor/2nd respondent would contend that earlier this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.312 of 2025 dated 13.03.2025 by imposing condition to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the credit of Crime No.273 of 2024. Since the petitioners were not in a position to comply with the condition within a stipulated time, they filed Crl.M.P.No.13174 of 2025 for extension of time to comply the condition and the same was also dismissed by this Court. In the meanwhile, the 2ndrespondent/defacto complainant filed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.13177 of 2025, in which this Court cancelled the anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.08.2025.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, on perusal of the records, it is seen that only after cancellation of the bail, the petitioners have come up with this application. However, while looking into the petition, the petitioners have suppressed the factum of cancellation of the bail by this court by order dated 01-08-2025. In such view of the factual position, the very conduct of the petitioners in suppressing the above fact and the very conduct in originally not impleading the second respondent, at whose instance the bail was cancelled, clearly demonstrates playing fraud against this court. In such view of the position, this Court is of the view that petitioners do not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Page4 of 5

¶8Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To

¶1The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶2The Inspector of Police C3 Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o23353oofo2025 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o23353oofo2025 30-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. R.Murugadoss 2. Nirmala, ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State Rep by The Inspector of Police C3 Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai (Crime No. 273 of 2024) 2. G.Shanthi (R2 is impleaded as per the order of this court dated 05.02.2026 in Crl.MP.No.1663 of 2026 in Crl.OP.No.23353 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.273/2024 on the file of the Respondent/ police. For Petitioner(s): M/S L.K.Manjunath For Respondent(s): MR.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate(crl.side) for R1 Ms.P.Subha Rao for R2