Sathishkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.14286 of 2026 Sathishkumar ... Petitioner / Accused Rank Not Known

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.17 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karunanithi

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468, 471 and 109 of IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an approved valuer engaged by the defacto complainant Bank. His services were utilised for inspecting the properties offered as security, assessing their market value, and furnishing valuation reports for the purpose of sanctioning loans. Based on the valuation reports submitted by the petitioner and the inspection reports furnished by the concerned Branch Manager, various loans aggregating to Rs.79,92,000/- were sanctioned to different borrowers. Subsequently, when the borrowers defaulted in repayment, it came to light that several of the properties shown as security either did not exist or were not as represented, and that the valuation reports furnished by the petitioner were not in accordance with the actual state of affairs. It is alleged that the borrowers, in collusion with the bank officials and the petitioner, cheated the Bank, resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs.79.92 lakhs.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's duty, as an approved valuer, was confined to inspecting the property, measuring the same, and assessing its market value. He had no responsibility or authority to verify the title or ownership of the property, which was the responsibility of the Bank and its legal panel. He further submitted that, since the properties and buildings were physically available at the time of inspection, the petitioner measured them and issued the valuation certificates in the ordinary course of his professional duties. The petitioner had no role in the alleged conspiracy or fraudulent transactions. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the case involves a large-scale bank fraud involving Rs.79.92 lakhs. It was further submitted that the investigation is still in progress. Though some of the accused, including A1 to A7, have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody, several other accused are still absconding. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel for State contended that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, it would seriously hamper the ongoing investigation and affect the efforts to apprehend the absconding accused. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the fact that the investigation is still in progress, and that some of the accused are yet to be apprehended, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for a fair and effective investigation. This Court is further of the view that granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

20.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.14286oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.14286oofo2026 Dateoo:o20.07.2026