Allowed

Venkatesan v. State rep.by its The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Sept 2025CRL OP/18113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No. 306 of 2025. The court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested, subject to specific conditions including executing a bond with two sureties and reporting to the police daily for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order to release petitioner on bail if arrested, subject to executing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, daily reporting for three weeks, and surrender within 15 days.

Venkatesan Vs State rep.by its The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP.No. 18113 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 18113 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No. 13321 of 2025

Venkatesan

Petitioner

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police G2, Periamet Police Station Chennai District

¶7

Crime No. 306 of 2025.

¶8

Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Cr.No. 306 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Dilli Ganesh Krishnamoorthy For Interverner : Mr.S.A.Syed Haroon For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 319(1), 61(2), and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 and under Section 406,

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.OP.No. 18113 of 2025

¶16

420, 468, 471, 416, 120(B) and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No. 306 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had received a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- from the son of the de-facto complainant under the pretext of “getting job” in Greater Chennai Corporation, further issued fabricated appointment order, thereafter, had cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence the complaint.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶19

an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner only introduced the de-facto complainant to other accused for getting employment and he has not received any money from the de-facto complainant. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the petitioner was only an introducer and he has not received any money from the son of the de-facto complainant. He further submits that the co-accused

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.OP.No. 18113 of 2025

¶24

had already been arrested in this regard. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record .

¶26

6 . Considering the facts that the petitioner herein has not received any benefit/money by the main accused, and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsels on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, 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 II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, o n 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 condition that:

¶27

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.OP.No. 18113 of 2025

¶31

[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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶32

[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;

¶33

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [ (2005)13 SCC 283 ];

¶34

4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.OP.No. 18113 of 2025

¶37

e ] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR

¶38

can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

¶39

Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No. 13321 of

2025 is closed

24.09.2025

MSM To

1.The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶44

2.The Inspector of Police

¶45

G2, Periamet Police Station

¶46

Chennai District

¶47

Crime No. 306 of 2025.

¶48

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶49

5/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Crl.OP.No. 18113 of 2025

¶52

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶53

MSM

¶54

Crl.O.P.No. 18113 of 2025

¶55

24.09.2025

¶56

6/6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Venkatesan v. State rep.by its The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesan v. State rep.by its The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Gokulakrishnan Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Harsha Vs State Rep. By

Senthil @ Senthil Murugan Vs State Rep.by Inspector of Police

Vignesh Vs State by

Manikandan Vs State rep by its

Geetha Vs The Inspector of Police