G.Sumathi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2679 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2679 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

G.Sumathi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 21 May, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                           CRL OP(MD). No. 9475 of 2026




                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                                  Date : 21.05.2026

                                                      PRESENT

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 9475 of 2026


                     G.Sumathi                                    ...Petitioner/Accused -2
                                                       Vs

                     State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Batlagundu Police Station,
                     Dindigul.
                     (Crime No. 213 of 2026 )                               ...Respondent


                                      For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sangeetha
                                                     Advocate.
                                      For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                           PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

                     PRAYER :-

                           For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 213 of 2026 on the file of the

                     1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          CRL OP(MD). No. 9475 of 2026


                     respondent police.

                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of

BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 213 of 2026 on the file of the respondent

police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that believing false promise

of A1 and A2, in order to obtain job abroad, the defacto

complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to A1. Later, A1 informed

the defacto complainant that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was sent to

her bank account in dollars. However, the complainant did not

receive the same. When the complainant questioned the same, A1

arranged a conference call to the alleged bank manager. Further as

per the instructions of the alleged bank manager, the complainant

made payment of Rs.5,45,000/- in various dates in order to receive

Rs.6,00,000/-. However, A1 neither secured employment nor

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

returned the amount. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case

and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would

further submit that entire transactions are between A1 and the

defacto complainant and there is no specific overt-act as against

the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the

petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would

submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto

complainant, a case has been registered for the offences

punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 213 of

2026. He would further submit that the investigation is pending

and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and

the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and

considering the facts that entire transactions are between A1 and

the defacto complainant and there is no specific overt-act as

against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be

released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai,

Dindigul, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the

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

respondent police, on the first day of every English

Calender month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of

similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or

witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take

appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance

with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560].

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

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR

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

(R V J) 21.05.2026 apd

To