High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARCrl.O.P.Nos. 17312, 17578, 17581 & 17898 of 20251.Vikesh Kumar .. Petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No. 17312/20252.Ashish Kumar .. Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No. 17578/20253.Abishek ... Petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No. 17581/20254.Sanjay Balkrishna Gurav ... Petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P. No. 17898/2025 VersusState Rep byThe Sub Inspector of Police,Avadi CCB Police StationAvadi City.[Crime No. 67 of 2025] ... Respondent[In all Crl.OPs]COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in connection with Crime No. 67 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.Crl.O.P.No. 17312 of 2025:For Petitioner:Mr.Vikram VeerasamyFor Respondent:Mr.R.Vinoth RajaGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side)Crl.O.P.Nos. 17578 & 17581 of 2025:For Petitioners: Mr.E.V.ChandruFor Respondent :Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)For Intervener:Mr.E.Felix ParthibanCrl.O.P.No. 17898 of 2025:1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Petitioner:Mr.Naveen SureshFor Respondent:Mr.S.UdayakumarGovernment Advocate (Criminal Side) COMMON ORDERThe petitioners arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC., in Crime No. 67 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant and the petitioner/A1 and A2 are close relatives. The de-facto complainant was running jewellery business for more than 29 years. Initially, A1 and A2 received jewellery from the de-facto complainant for the purpose of their business expansion and the same was returned promptly. On their request viz., A1 to A3, the de-facto complainant handed over 13.102 kgs of jewellery valued at approximately Rs.12,50,00,000/- along with cash of Rs.23,00,000/- to A1 to A3 for the purpose of expansion of their business. After receiving the jewellery as well as the cash, the accused persons failed to return the same even after a lapse of one year. Finally, the de-facto complainant requested the same, the accused persons threatened the de-facto 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis complainant to kill them. Hence the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all petitions submitted that the de-facto complainant is the brother-in-law of the petitioners/A1 & A2 and the de-facto complainant had married the cousin sister of A1 and A2. A1 and A2 were running jewellery shop in the name of Deepa Jewellery. A3 is a friend of A1 and A2. Admittedly, the de-facto complainant had business relationship with his cousins viz., A1 and A2. He further submits that the accused were granted interim bail in Crl.O.P.Nos. 17578, 17312 and 17581 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025 and they strictly complying the conditions imposed by this Court and thereafter, the matter had referred to Mediation and the mediation was failed among themselves. There was some misunderstanding between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant in accounting of jewels. A3 had separate business relationship with A1 and A2, nothing to do with the de-facto complainant. Now, the de-facto complainant due to his business failure makes false allegations against the petitioners herein. He also submits that the petitioners are 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that totally 8 accused involved in this case. He further submits that the de-facto complainant handed over 13.102 kgs of gold and a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- to A1 to A3 for the expansion of their business. When the de-facto complainant requested to return back the amount as well as gold jewels, A1 to A3 had refused to return the same. On investigation it revealed that A1 and A2 in connivance with A3 engaged A5 and melted the gold jewels, converted them into gold bars and sold the same in the market. The de-facto complainant produced the bills and vouchers for the supply of gold jewels to A1 & A2, and their shop was searched and it reveals that A1 and A2 in connivance with other co-accused had misappropriated, converted the gold jewels and used for personal benefits and cheated the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that investigation is pending against the petitioners herein. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5.The learned Counsel for the Intervener/De-facto complainant 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submitted that A1 and A2 are the close relatives to the de-facto complainant. A1 and A2 had approached the de-facto complainant seeking assistance to expand their gold business. On their request, the de-facto complainant had handed over 13.102 kgs of gold jewels worth about Rs.12,50,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- to A1 and A2 for the purpose of expansion of their business. After receiving the same, the accused had failed to return the same. On enquiry revealed that, A1 to A3 with the help of A5 to A7 melted the gold jewels into gold bars and sold them in the market. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Intervener/De-facto complainant opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.6. Heard both sides and perused the records including the receipts issued for the purpose of handing over the gold jewels to the accused herein. On perusal of FIR, it reveals that for the purpose of the business development of Accused 1 and 2, the de-facto complainant had supplied the gold jewellery and cash to the petitioners/A1 to A3. Thereafter, when the de-facto complainant went to the jewellery shop, there was some quarrel between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, subsequently, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners once again. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The petitioners/A1 & A2 had not handed over the jewels and they were not in possession of jewels and the same were melting as gold bars and sold them in the market. The de-facto complainant had supplied the gold jewels to the petitioners from the year May 2024 to June, 2024.7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsels on either side and considering the fact that the petitioners had business relationship and the period of incarceration undergone i.e., 37 days, by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Since the petitioners had already granted interim bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.17312, 17578, 17581 & 17898 of 2025, dated 01.07.2025, with conditions, they shall continue the conditions imposed for 3 more weeks and appear before the respondent as and when required. 8.In the light of the above, no need fresh conditions are necessary. It 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is also made clear that the petitioners shall co-operate for trial. 03.11.2025MSMTo1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram.2.The Sub Inspector of Police,Avadi CCB Police StationAvadi City. [Crime No. 67 of 2025] 3.The Central Prison, Puzhal.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.K.RAJASEKAR, J.,7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MSMCrl.O.P.Nos.17312, 17578, 17581 & 17898 of 202503.11.20258/8