CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 K.R.Senthilkumar @ Durai Senthil ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vengamedu Police Station Karur District (Crime No. 54 of 2026 ) ...Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.V.Muthu Kamatchi For Intervenor : Mr. Ananthapadmanabhan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 54 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420,406,417 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No. 54 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons pledged spurious gold jewels and cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.91,09,500/-Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner alleging that A1 borrowed loan by pledging the gold jewels from the defacto complainant and settle the amount. Subsequently A2 to A10 were introduced by A1 to the defacto complainant. Again A1 pledged the gold jewellery in the name of A2 to A10 received amount from the defacto complainant from 04.10.2022 to 26.07.2024, A1 continuously brought the jewels for pledging and thereafter while the defacto complainant tested the gold jewellery found that jewels pledged by the accused are duplicate jewels, thereby A1 to A10 cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.91,09,500/- . Infact the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 petitioner has pledged the original gold jewels and the petitioner without retaining jewels he stated that jewels pledged were duplicated. Already the petitioner has given a complaint against the defacto complainant and a case has been registered in crime No.273 of 2025 and now only to escape from the clutches of law filed this case and the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 70% and one leg was amputated and therefore he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are residing in the same building and the intervenor is having a auto finance company and at the request of the petitioner he lent money by receiving jewels from the petitioner. Initially he pledged the original jewels and redeemed them and thereafter he pledged the spurious jewels and also introduced other accused and they also pledged the jewels to the tune of Rs.91,09,500/-. When he tested the jewels he came to know that all the jewels are spurious jewels, thereby he lodged complaint . Earlier the petitioner also lodged complaint based on which a case has been registered in crime No.273 of 2025 and the same is pending investigation. Hence he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant they have registered the case and the investigation is still pending. The petitioner pledged the spurious gold jewels and thereby cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. Rs.91,09,500/-. And the offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature, hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the gravity of offence and also the fact that huge amount involved in this case and the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Hence the petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 26.03.2026 aav 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 To 1.The Inspector of Police, Vengamedu Police Station Karur District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5527 of 2026 P. DHANABAL, J aav ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5527 of 2026 Date : 26.03.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis