R.Dhanapal v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Town

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7536 of 2026 R.Dhanapal ... Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Town Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.30 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajeshkumar

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 30 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) and 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.30 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that one Selvakumar asked the defacto complainant to redeem his jewels from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank and purchase the same. On his request the defacto complainant do the same and purchased the jewels. But, later he came to know that the jewels are fake one. All the accused persons jointly cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶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. This petitioner has no role in the above said incident. Only based on the confession statement of the co-accused, this petitioner has been implicated in this case. 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 accused persons are joint together and cheated the defacto complainant by giving fake jewels. By believing the words of one Selvakumar, the defacto complainant redeemed the jewels and purchased the same. But, after purchasing the jewels only, he came to know that they are fake. The petitioner is A9. On the confession statement of A1 this petitioner has been implicated in this case. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner has 14 previous cases.

¶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, only based on the confession statement of the co-accused this petitioner has been implicated, the redeemed jewels were pledged by the main accused, who is A1, and not by this petitioner, even according to the petitioner he was in judicial custody, though the petitioner has 14 previous case, in all those cases, he was granted bail and they are not similar in nature, 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, Thiruppathur, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [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)

17.04.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Town Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.30 of 2026)

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

P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7536 of 2026 Date : 17.04.2026