Senthilkumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.14357 of 2026

1.Senthilkumar

2.Sivaprakashkumar ... Petitioners / A1 and A2

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Dindigul. (Crime No.20 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Manikandan

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(1), 318(4), 336, 340 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that they approached the defacto complainant offering to sell certain lands and, on that representation, collected nearly one crore from the defacto complainant in three instalments, all paid in cash. It is further alleged that the petitioners executed separate receipts acknowledging the receipt of the said amounts. Thereafter, whenever the defacto complainant demanded execution of the sale deed, the petitioners informed him that certain clearances from the Reserve Bank of India were required and, on that pretext, kept delaying the transaction. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioners had dishonestly collected the money and cheated him. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even prior to the registration of the present case, an enquiry had been conducted by the respondent police, during which the petitioner appeared and gave his statement. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the respondent police during the enquiry, admitted the receipt of the money and also agreed to settle the dispute. However, he failed to honour the said undertaking. It was further submitted that the investigation is still in progress. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not executed any document undertaking to repay the amount, as contended by the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side), and reiterated his request for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶6This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶7A perusal of the FIR reveals that specific dates of payment have been mentioned and that receipts acknowledging the receipt of the amounts are also alleged to have been executed by the petitioner. The allegation involves a substantial sum of money. The investigation is still in progress and, admittedly, no amount has been recovered so far. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

15.07.2026 pal To

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

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.14357oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.14357oofo2026 Dateoo:o15.07.2026