Sudha Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶7

Sudha 2. Elangovan 3. Sarumathi ... Petitioners Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur District. (Crime No.40 of 2026) ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of arrest in Crime No.40 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ajith for Mr.K.A.M.Jagadish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections

¶12

318(iv) and 351(ii) of BNS (420 and 506(1) of IPC) in Crime No.40 of 2026,

¶13

on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner was functioning as an agent for arranging employment opportunities abroad and obtaining visas for persons desirous of working in foreign countries. It is further alleged that the first petitioner received money from the de facto complainant on the assurance of securing employment abroad. However, neither was the promised employment arranged nor was the amount received from the de facto complainant repaid. Hence, the present case.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶19

petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they 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.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶21

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶25

From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that, according to the prosecution, the petitioners had cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. It is also seen that there are only two victims involved in the present case. Though allegations relating to job racket have been levelled against the petitioners, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the victims are only two in number, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. Further, the first and third petitioners are women. Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶26

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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai 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: 3/6

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶29

(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 automatically cancelled;

¶30

(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;

¶31

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., for a period of 15 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶32

(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];

¶33

(e) If the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

04.06.2026

kv

4/6

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶39

To

¶40

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thalavai Police Station, Ariyalur District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶41

5/6

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026

¶44

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

¶45

kv

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.13477 of 2026