Suganthi v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL K.Suganthi ...Petitioner/A15 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Karur, Karur District. (Crime No.2 of 2025) ...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Gokulraj Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener :Mr.R.Mathiyalagan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Accused No.15, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused are partners in Sri Thai Mookambigai Auto Finance and Credits, Sri Anamalai Auto Finance and Sri Vari Finance, wherein the first accused is participated in the day today affairs. According to the defacto complainant, the accused persons were received deposits from the various depositors to the tune of Rs.5 Crores and cheated them by not repaying the deposited amount and interest for the principal amount. The accused created false hope among the general public with huge profits and committed default. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not involved in the administration of the company. He would further 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. He would further submit that the co-accused was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the accused persons created false hope among the general public with huge profits and committed default and the offences are grave in nature. He would further submit that the investigation is not yet completed. He fairly submits that 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.

6.This Court earlier directed the petitioner to produce the documents before the respondent police to ascertain the value of the property. Today, the respondent filed a report stating that the value of the property is Rs.80,58,600/-.

¶7Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and since this Court already directed to deposit the document, the same was deposited by the petitioner before the respondent Police and the part of the investigation might have been completed and the co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and hence, the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the petitioner is made absolute, 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 Special Court for TNPID, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police on alternative Saturday 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 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)

26.03.2026 vsg

To

1.The learned Special Court for TNPID, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Karur, Karur District.b

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

CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e12868eofe2025 eeP.eDHANABAL,eJ., eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e12868eofe2025 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e26.03.2026