Dismissed

Suresh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2026CRL OP(MD)/15258/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that grant of bail at the current stage would hamper the ongoing investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners not granted anticipatory bail as grant would hamper the ongoing investigation.

Suresh Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 23.07.2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶7

CRL OP(MD)No.15258 of 2026

¶8

1.Suresh 2.Bharathi

¶9

3.Chitra

¶10

... Petitioners / A1 to A3

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District. (Crime No.246 of 2026)

¶13

... Respondent/Complainant

¶14

PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.246 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Dhilipan Pandian For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) For Intervener : Mr.S.Gokul Raj

¶16

1/7

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶19

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶20

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime

¶21

No.246 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seek the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner was employed as a Collection Agent in the defacto complainant's finance firm. It is alleged that, during the course of his employment over a period of about two years, he collected substantial amounts from various loan borrowers and other customers of the firm. By fabricating the accounts and other records, the first petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.28,30,000/-. Consequently, he was removed from service. It is further alleged that, when the defacto complainant demanded repayment of the misappropriated amount, the first petitioner assured that he would repay the same. When persistent demands were made, the first petitioner allegedly threatened the defacto complainant stating that, if any further demand was made, he would commit suicide and implicate them in a

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶26

criminal case. Thereafter, the first petitioner himself lodged a complaint alleging that he had been assaulted by the defacto complainant and others. Unable to bear the continued acts of intimidation and

¶27

misappropriation, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner was, in fact, abducted, assaulted and subjected to ill-treatment by the defacto complainant and others, in respect of which a separate case has already been registered in Crime No.234 of 2026 on the file of Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District. It was further submitted that the first petitioner was also a partner in the business activities of the defacto complainant and had independently dealt with the affairs of the firm. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount as alleged. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel further submitted that, if this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition insofar as the first petitioner is concerned.

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶32

Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation has revealed that, during the relevant period, a car worth about Rs. 14,00,000/- was purchased in the name of the third petitioner out of the misappropriated funds. It was further revealed that a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- had been transferred to the bank account of the second petitioner. The learned Counsel for State further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously hamper the investigation.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor also opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioners had clandestinely diverted and misappropriated the funds belonging to the finance firm. He further submitted that there are voice recordings and other digital evidence supporting the allegations of misappropriation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and

¶35

perused the materials available on record.

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶39

Though it is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner

¶40

was abducted and assaulted by the defacto complainant while demanding repayment of the amount, it is an admitted fact that no amount has been repaid by the petitioners. The materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclose that funds to the tune of Rs.28,30,000/- have been siphoned off. Admittedly, no part of the alleged misappropriated amount has been recovered so far and the investigation is still in progress. Considering the nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged misappropriation, the fact that the investigation is at a crucial stage and that recovery of the alleged misappropriated amount is yet to be effected, this Court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper the investigation. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

23.07.2026

pal

5/7

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

¶45

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶46

¶47

1.The The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District.

¶48

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

6/7

¶50

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

¶51

CRL OP(MD). No.15258 of 2026

¶52

K. RAJASEKAR,J.

¶53

pal

¶54

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15258 of 2026

¶55

Date : 23.07.2026

¶56

7/7

¶57

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

Suresh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendran Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nib - Cid

Malaisamy Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Nib - Cid

V Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Theerthakumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by

Saravana Kumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Puliangudi

Venkatesan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kumbakonam East