Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 S.Padmapriya Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs. State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram City Police Station, Tambaram District. (Crime No.118/2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent Police in Crime No.118 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram City Police Station, Tambaram District. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Karthick Srinath For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No.118 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was induced by the accused persons to invest substantial amounts in areal-estate/layout development project on the representations that the project would be developed and the complainant would derive financial benefits therefrom. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the wife of A2 and that she has been implicated in the present case solely on account of her relationship with A2. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.14178 of 2026, dated 12.06.2026, whereby all the other accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Placing reliance upon the said order, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is also entitled to the benefit of parity. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police opposed the anticipatory bail petition and would submit that a sum of Rs.11.40 lakhs had been transacted through the petitioner's bank account. However, the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail was not seriously disputed. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that a sum of Rs.11.40 lakhs had been transacted through the petitioner's bank account. However, this Court, after an elaborate discussion, in paragraph 8 of the order dated 12.06.2026 passed in Crl.O.P.No.14178 of 2026, has observed as follows:- “8. While looking into the factual circumstances, it is seen that, according to the FIR itself, the occurrence commenced on 01.03.2022. However, the FIR came to be registered only on 23.05.2026. Though the learned counsel for the intervener vehemently contended that the vehicles worth about Rs.19 crores belong exclusively to the de facto complainant, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.2573 of 2026, the possession of the vehicles presently remains with the petitioners and stands protected by the order of status quo. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration at this stage is as to whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. As already noted, the dispute is presently the subject matter of proceedings before the Civil Court, and this Court has granted an order of status quo. In such circumstances, notwithstanding the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions:” 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 7. In such view of the detailed discussion, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is entitled to claim parity with the co- accused. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner is a woman, this Court is of the view that her custodial interrogation is not required at this stage. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram on condition that 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 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 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 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 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. 07.07.2026 kv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram. 2. The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram City Police Station, Tambaram District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN.J. kv Crl.O.P.No.17335 of 2026 07.07.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis