M Aneesh Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL M.Aneesh Kumar ... Petitioner/A1 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep BY, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.180 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-8 AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 180 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.180 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

17.04.2026, the complainant is working as Manager in INDEL MONEY FINANCE COMPANY. The petitioner was an appraiser employed in ESSAF Bank. On

16.04.2026, the petitioner approached complainant and stated one Setthalakshmi pledged 143.300 grams of gold jewels in INDEL MONEY FINANCE COMPANY nellai branch for Rs.16,92,365/- and requested to take over the said loan and demanded for further money. Hence, the complainant personally paid Rs.16,92,365/- and additionally paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thereafter, they demanded and the same was denied by the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the financiers advised the complainant to go with the petitioner to test the jewels and get the money. The petitioner took the financier to S.S.Jewellery and asked them to stay in jewellery shop and collected jewels for testing. Thereafter, the petitioner escaped from the spot with jewels. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel for the State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and the petitioner has no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶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 and the petitioner has no previous cases and also considering the fact that the occurrence took place on 17.04.2026 and the FIR has been registered belatedly on 18.05.2026 and on perusal of the complaint, it is seen that there is a money dispute between the parties and the most of the investigation might have been completed and hence, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at

10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and 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)

23.06.2026 vsg TO

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli..

2.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.11946eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeP.eDHANABAL,J., vsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.11946eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e23/06/2026