CRL OP(MD). No.652 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD)No.652 of 2026 Chinnamani ... Petitioner/ Accused No.13 Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, CCB Madurai City Police Station, Madurai – District. Crime No.41 of 2024 ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest connected with the Crime No.41 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayaraj For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.652 of 2026 ORDER : The Court makes the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.13, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.41 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(1) of BNS, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had pledged 753 of sovereigns gold with CSB Bank and subsequently the accused persons by forging the signature of the defacto complainant, redeemed the jewels and failed to return the same to the defacto complainant. According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant already handed over the amount of Rs.56,10,000/- to redeem the jewels. Inspite of receipt of the same, he failed to return the jewels. Hence the complaint was registered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and there is no specific overt act against the petitioner and hence, he sought to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.652 of 2026 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent on instructions would submit that each accused had specific role in the alleged offence and all the accused have conspired together and forged the signature of the defacto complainant and redeemed the jewels and thereafter, failed to return the same to the de- facto complainant, inspite of receiving a sum of Rs.56,10,000/- from the defacto complainant. In view of this serious nature of offence the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Therefore, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side. 6. Considering the fact that the large amount is involved in this case and also the alleged offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioner indulging in further offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.652 of 2026 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11.03.2026 ebsi To 1. The Inspector of Police, CCB Madurai City Police Station, Madurai – District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.652 of 2026 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J. ebsi ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.652 of 2026 Date : 11.03.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis