Chinnarajan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Alanganallur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 5079 of 2026 Chinnarajan ... Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.36 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Thangapandi Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 36 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No. 36 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint that there was a business transaction between the petitioners and the accused persons, in which, they have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs. On the basis of the above said complaint the present case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. As per the FIR the only overt act against the petitioner is that the petitioner introduced the accused Nos.2 to 4 and they have the business transaction with the defacto complainant. The petitioner has no role in other transactions. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the offences are grave in nature. The defacto complainant is appraiser. The accused persons approached the defacto complainant and cheated to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs. Hence, he vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner has no previous case.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, the alleged occurrence took plae on

01.07.2025, the FIR has been registered on 01.04.2026, even according to the prosecution the A1 introduced the A2 and the A2 pledged the jewels with Canara Bank, thereafter, due to non payment the defacto complainant participated in the auction and purchased the jewels, thereafter, he came to know about the purity of the jewels, but, the defacto complainant, who participated in the auction has to verify the purity of the jewels and that too the petitioner has only introduced the A2, who pledged the jewels, apart from that there is no other allegation against the petitioner and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J)

22.04.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.

2.The Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.36 of 2026)

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5079 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026