R.Siddque Vs Inspector of Police (Crime)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.80 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Munuswamy

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 403, 420 and 120B of

¶17

IPC, in Crime No.80 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks 1/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.8106 of 2026

¶20

anticipatory bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working with the de facto complainant company as a Business Executive and, during the course of his employment, he is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.76 lakhs during the period between March 2023 and September 2023. It is further alleged that the said misappropriation came to light only in the year 2025 during the course of an audit, and thereafter, the present FIR came to be registered.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had resigned from his job in December 2023 due to non-payment/delay in payment of salary and that his position in the company did not involve any money transactions, and therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are false and fabricated.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence took place between March 2023 and September 2023, whereas the FIR was registered only on 02.02.2025. It is also submitted that even prior to the registration of the FIR,

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.8106 of 2026 there was an issue between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of settlement of salary, and in that connection, the present complaint has been given.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would oppose the anticipatory bail application and submit that the misappropriation came to light only in the year 2025 through audit and that the investigation is still pending.

¶28

Taking into consideration of the period of occurrence between March 2023 and September 2023 and the registration of the FIR in February 2025, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, no custodial interrogation is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District

¶30

Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram, Chennai – 600

¶31

060, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.8106 of 2026 Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a

¶35

like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

¶36

(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;

¶37

(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;

¶38

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 am and 5.30 pm. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶39

(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];

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.8106 of 2026

¶43