Divya v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Divya ... Petitioner / Accused No.9

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai City. (Crime No.25 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.25 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhu

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.25 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 465, 468, 471 and 408 of IPC, seeks the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, by mortgaging inflated rate of property, illegally obtained a loan of Rs.19,13,980/- from the defacto complainant/finance company, with the help of officials of the said finance company. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner stands on the same footing as the co-accused, namely, Kalaichitra, who was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.12933 of 2026 dated 06.07.2026. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. 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 total loss involved in the case is approximately Rs.1.63 Crores. He further submitted that the petitioner, in connivance with the other accused, including certain bank officials, had obtained loan amounts by producing inflated valuations of the mortgaged properties. It was only during the loan recovery proceedings that the fraudulent acts and the offence of cheating came to light. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He also submitted that the investigation in the present case is still in progress and, therefore, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

¶6On a perusal of the records, it is seen that one of the co-accused, namely, Kalaichitra, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.12933 of 2026 dated 06.07.2026. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: " 6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that though the value of the property is less, the officials of the finance complay have played major role in this case and the investigation is pending and the petitioner is a lady, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: ...."

¶7The reasons assigned by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the said co-accused squarely apply to the case of the present petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of parity, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, 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.I, Madurai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

(a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation;

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; and

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

22.07.2026 pal To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai City.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD)No.15051oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15051oofo2026 Dateoo:o22.07.2026