CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 1. Geetha W/o.Sugumar, No.7/175,kaliyamman kovil street, S.N.palayam, ponnai, Vellore-632 514 2. Renukadevi No.3,Gandhi Nagar, Ernavur, Chennai -600057 ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police N-1 Royapuram Police Station, chennai - 600 013. ..Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioners/ Accused No 1 , 2 on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in crime no.172 of 2026 or on his appearance before the concern court on the file of the respondent / complainant. For Petitioners: M/S. ANBARASAN S For Respondent: MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) MR.D.SAMNANDAKUMAR FOR INTERVENOR https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 189(3), 316, 318(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.172 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 is Sivaraman, who is the son of the first petitioner and husband of the second petitioner. A1 had an affair with the defacto complainant and, on the false promise of obtaining divorce from the third petitioner on the ground that she is mentally retarded, he had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,56,00,000/- by receiving, from time to time, gold jewels weighing 97 sovereigns, cash, diamonds and other valuables. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though serious allegations have been made in the FIR, the only allegation against these petitioners is that they had assisted A1 and, beyond that, even as per the FIR, there is no allegation that any property was received by these petitioners. 3.1. It is further submitted that the first petitioner is aged about 66 years and the second petitioner is aged about 37 years. He further submitted that they https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. The said submissions were strongly objected to by the learned intervenor counsel, who would submit that the petitioners, knowing fully well about the acts committed by A1, had assisted him and failed to disclose the correct facts to the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it would be difficult to recover the jewels and other valuables. 5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent would also reiterate the said submissions. 6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. 7. On perusal of the factual position, it is apparent that A1 and the defacto complainant were in a relationship for a considerable period and the alleged transactions took place only during such period. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no specific allegation in the FIR that these petitioners had received either the amount or any valuables from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 defacto complainant. The only allegation against these petitioners is that they had assisted A1 and thereby participated in the alleged offence. 8. Though such allegations have been made against the petitioners, considering the totality of the circumstances, namely, the longstanding relationship between A1 and the defacto complainant, the absence of any specific allegation regarding receipt of money or valuables by these petitioners, and the fact that the petitioners are women, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. 9. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate- George Town, Chennai district on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), each with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 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 petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09-07-2026 JRS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To 1.The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate- George Town, Chennai District. 2.The Inspector of Police N-1 Royapuram Police Station, Chennai - 600 013. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRL OP No. 15621 of 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis