Vengadasapathy Alias Venkatachalapathy v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1.Vengadasapathy @ Venkatachalapathy, S/o.Ramasamy

2.Sakthirani, W/o.Venkatachalapathy ...Petitioners/A1 & A2

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.147 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh,

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.SC.Herold Singh, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER : For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.147 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No.147 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, on 22.12.2022, the petitioners received gold jewellery weighing 50 sovereigns from the de-facto complainant for the purpose of their daughter's marriage without making any payment. However, they assured the de-facto complainant that they would pay the amount, including the making charges and wastage, within 10 days, depending upon the prevailing market value. After the expiry of the stipulated period, no payment was made. When the de-facto complainant demanded the amount, the petitioners failed to pay and further they threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences by using a sickle. Hence, the present case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners are neighbours of the de-facto complainant and that, about four years ago, they received 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery from the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, they neither returned the gold jewellery nor paid its value, thereby cheating the de-facto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, would submit that there are totally two accused persons in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners received 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery from the de-facto complainant and neither returned the same nor paid its value. Hence, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶6Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the rival submissions made on either side, the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioners, the fact that the alleged offences are said to have taken place on 22.12.2022, whereas the FIR was registered only on 19.04.2026, and the fact that, by this time, material part of the investigation might have been completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks; [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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)

25.06.2026 (2/2) mkn To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town West Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e11831eofe2026 ooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ. ooooooooooooooomkn oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o11831oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDatedoo:o25.06.2026 (2/2)