B. Chandra Sekar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

ORDER The petitioners/A1 & A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 49, 296(b), 318(4) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.31 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2According to the prosecution, the petitioners herein are the father & son and the defacto complainant is the uncle of the first petitioner, who is aged about 99 years. The petitioners forged the signature of the complainant and obtained loan of Rs.2.74 crore from the State Bank of India where A6 was working as Manager. Hence, the complainant gave a complaint. Based on that, the respondent police, registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2025 for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that this is the third anticipatory bail petition and earlier petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed by this Court. He further submitted that after dismissal of the earlier petitions, documents were sent for forensic comparison, and the report also support the case of the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, submitted that earlier anticipatory bail petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed by this Court twice on merits and present petition has also been filed without any change in circumstances and steps have been taken for comparison of documents and the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have gone through the FIR and also the connected materials.

¶6This Court considering the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the earlier petitions, documents were sent for forensic comparison and awaiting opinion. But, no material has been produced before this Court to substantiate the fact that there is no forgery. The prosecution has also reported that steps have been taken for comparison and the investigation is pending. The earlier petitions field by the petitioners were already dismissed by this Court on merit and there is no change in circumstances in the present petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

09.07.2026 dss To

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station, Madurai City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8989 of 2026 Date : 09/07/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/07/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR 1. B. Chandra Sekar 2. C. Arun Yogeshwaran ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 3 Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, The Sub Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station, Madurai City. (Crime No. 31 of 2025). ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. Dr.A.B. Rajasekar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 31 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police... For Petitioners : Mr.Arun Ramnadh, Advocate, for M/s.P.Subha Rani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.S.Vellai Chamy, Advocate for R2.