CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 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 Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 T Krishnan S/o Thiruvengadam, 28 Srinavasa Nagar, Pradhona Salai, Ayapakkam, Chennai. K.Sulochana W/o Krishna 28, Srinavasa Nagar, Pradhona Salai, Ayapakkam, Chennai. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15348 of 2026 Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17269 of 2026 Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police(CRIME) T5 Thiruverkadu Police Station, Chennai – 600 077. Crime No.166 of 2026 Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps COMMON PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners by the respondent in Crime No.166 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police T5, Thiruverkadu, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Raja M For Respondent(s): For Intervenor Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.N.Iyya Kannu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 COMMON ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 316 BNS and 318(4) of BNS in Crime No. 166 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had leased out the property to the defacto complainant on receipt of Rs.5,50,000/-. By way of SARFAESI proceedings, the State Bank of India, from which they had already borrowed a loan, took the possession of the property, thereby, the defacto complainant’s possession was interefered with. He further submitted that the petitioners have no intention to commit any offence and it is only because of the consequence of the statutory proceedings that such things are happened. 3. Learned counsel for the Intervenor objected the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners having the knowledge about the consequences of the loan which they have obtained. They have cheated the defacto complainant with the criminal intention and thereby the defacto complainant has sustained loss. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted against the petitioners sand that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 7. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the registration of F.I.R relates solely to recover of Rs.5,50,000/- , which carries the elements of civil transaction, this Court is of the firm view that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. 8. 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 VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at G.T.Court, Chennai on condition that each of the petitioners 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 petitioners fail 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 automatically cancelled; (b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety slip (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 daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required; (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 are 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MFA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at G.T. Court, Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police T5 Thiruverkadu Police Station, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. MFA CRL OP Nos. 15348 & 17269 of 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis