CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 M.Sekaran ..Petitioner Vs State rep. through The Inspector of Police Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.341 of 2025) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.341/2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Saravanan For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No.341 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant stated that the petitioner initially helped her in solving her family disputes and thereby https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 developed a close relationship with the petitioner. Believing his words, on 22.01.2017, when the petitioner requested a hand loan for his family needs, she gave him 12 sovereigns of gold jewels to obtain a loan. Thereafter, during the period from 2017 to 2022, the petitioner allegedly received totally 80 sovereigns of gold jewels and a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- from the defacto complainant. When she demanded the return of the jewels and money, the petitioner avoided her. It is further alleged that on 03.05.2024, she lodged a complaint against him and thereafter the petitioner returned only 17 sovereigns of gold jewels and promised to return the remaining 63 sovereigns and the loan amount within nine months. However, he failed to do so and allegedly threatened her. Hence, the complaint was registered. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had served in NLC, Neyveli for about 37 years and retired as Deputy General Manager on 30.06.2023 with unblemished service record. It is further submitted that the petitioner only attempted to solve the family dispute of the defacto complainant and had also helped her financially on certain occasions. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the complaint are false. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the case relates to a monetary transaction between the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 parties and there are no previous cases against the petitioner. However, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, the case appears to have arisen out of a loan transaction between the parties. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. Further, even according to the FIR, the occurrence is said to have taken place from 22.01.2017, whereas the FIR was registered only on 18.11.2025. Considering the long delay in registering the FIR and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, taking into account that the petitioner is aged about 63 years, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to 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 fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli, Cuddalore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09-03-2026 NSL https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Inspector of Police Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District. 2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. 3. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli, Cuddalore District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL CRL OP No. 6008 of 2026 09-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis