Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 Sarathkumar ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs. State By, The Inspector of Police, C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore City. Crime No.245 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.245 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 O R D E R The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC ( Section 316(5) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023) in Crime No.245 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was working as Manager in the M/s.Muthoot Finance Company, defacto complainant was customer in the Finance Company and she had pledged some jewels and obtained gold loan and after she repaid the money ie., Rs.8,50,000/- , the jewels were not handed over to the defacto complainant, subsequently, she came to know that, the jewels were repledged in another Finance Company without her knowledge. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is a Manager and there was a money transaction between the petitioner and the defato complainant and re-pledging of the jewels was taken place only with the consent of the defcto complainant and therefore there is no case of cheating and she is well aware about the transactions and in this regard, petitioner also lodged a complaint, for which enquiry was also 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 conducted. He also produced various documents to show that there were various money transactions between them apart from his official business transactions. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, though the petitioner while working as a Manager assisted in pledging the jewels, after receiving the loan amount, failed to return the jewels and it was re-pledged without her knowledge. In this regard, investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is alleged that the defacto complainant was aware of the re- pledging of her jewels, and there were other financial transaction between the petitioner and defacto complainant and these transactions were not indicated in the FIR and counter complaint also lodged by the petitioner and enquiry was also conducted, I am of the view that, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 the petitioner with certain conditions: 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] 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 interrogation; 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 25.10.2025 sma To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. 2.The Inspector of Police, C-4, Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore City. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR, J. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 sma Crl.O.P.No.18491 of 2025 25.10.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis