CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 1.Karthikeyan 2.Jeyanthi 3.Saroja ...Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District. (Crime No.34 of 2025) 2.The Tahsildar, Nilakottai. ...Respondents (R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court dated 19.01.2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17575 of 2025) For Petitioners:Mr.A.Arul Jenifer Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener :Mr.K.R.Laxman PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.34 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.34 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the brother's son of the defacto complainant, the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner's brother. The defacto complainant is a retired Government employee of fire department and his wife is also a retired Government employee of the Health Centre and they have had no children for 32 years. After the retirement of the defacto 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 complainant and his wife, both the retirement benefit of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.41 lakhs were deposited in their savings account in the bank of India, Vadipatti Branch and 82 sovereigns of gold jewels were kept in the bank locker. The defacto complainant and his wife were diagnosed with a health issue, for the same, they were under treatment wherein, due to the above said health issue, the defacto complainant was unable to move on his own and the doctor also instructed the defacto complainant to accompany any person with him during treatment. Thereafter, the first petitioner and his wife consoled them that they will take good care of both defacto complainant and his wife and thereby, the defacto complainant and his wife fell for the warm words of the petitioners. The first petitioner repeatedly visited the defacto complainant and his wife and also accompanied them to the hospital for their treatments. Due to the ill health of the defacto 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 complainant and age factors, the defacto complainant entrusted his ATM card to the first petitioner to incur an expense for their medical treatment. But, the petitioners conspired together and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 50,12,290/- from the defacto complainant's account and 82 sovereigns of jewels. When the same came to know to the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant demanded the return of the money and jewels. However, the petitioners refused to return them. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is the brother's son of the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioners 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 assisted the defacto complainant and his wife with love and care. He would further submit that since the first petitioner sought partition of his ancestor property from the defacto complainant, a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the first petitioner visited the defacto complainant and his wife and also accompanied them to the hospital for their treatments. Due to the ill health of the defacto complainant and age factors, the defacto complainant entrusted his ATM card to the first petitioner to incur an expense for their medical treatment. But, the petitioners conspired together and misappropriated a sum of Rs.50,12,290/- from the defacto complainant's account and 82 sovereigns of jewels. When the 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 same came to know to the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant demanded the return of the money and jewels. The petitioners refused to return them. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. He fairly submits that the petitioner has no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the rival submissions on either side and nature of offence and considering the fact that there was a money dispute between the 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 parties and as the date of FIR is 25.09.2025, by this time material part of the investigation might have been completed and the petitioners appeared before the respondent Police for enquiry and no previous case is pending against the petitioners and hence, the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the petitioners is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, and on further conditions that: 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 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) 22.04.2026 vsg 2/2 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District. (Crime No.34 of 2025) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 17575 of 2025 P. DHANABAL, J., vsg ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 17575 of 2025 Date : 22.04.2026 2/2 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis