Suresh Vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,

Suresh vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 06, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1447210

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1447210
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri
Decided On: May 06, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/10614/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh

Respondent

The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....for the alleged offence under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of bns, 2023 in crime no.145 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. page1 of 62. the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner/a1 induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of rs.10,00,000/- in his company and thereafter cheated him. hence the present case.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner isinnocent persons and he has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and submitted that the petitioner is involved in two previous cases. however, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. i have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. page2 of 67. accordingly, the petitioner shall pay a sum of rs.25,000/- (rupeestwenty five thousand only) as cost to the tamil nadu advocate’s clerk’s association, chennai, account no. 484026006, branch: indian bank high court, ifsc no.idib000m157 and on such payment, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, denkanikottai (fac), on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.05.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CRL.O.P.No.10614 of 2026 Suresh ..Petitioner Vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No. 145 of 2025. ..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No. 145 of 2025 pending on the file of the Respondent Police for the alleged offences Punishable U/s 316(2) and 318(4) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper. For Petitioner : Ms.P.Neelavathi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate.

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.145 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page1 of 6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner/A1 induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in his company and thereafter cheated him. Hence the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

innocent persons and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and submitted that the petitioner is involved in two previous cases. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. Page2 of 6

7. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand only) as cost to the Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Clerk’s Association, Chennai, Account No. 484026006, Branch: Indian Bank High Court, IFSC No.IDIB000M157 and on such payment, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai (FAC), on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 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 daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. Page3 of 6

(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. 06-05-2026 kmm Note to Registry:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this

Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page4 of 6 To

1. Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. Page5 of 6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

kmm CRL.O.P.No.10614 of 2026 06.05.2026 Page6 of 6

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Suresh vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police, Same Judge Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri