High Court · 2025

CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-12-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARCRL OP No. 34524 of 20251. Narapareddy ChiranjeeviS/o.Seethapathi, 503, Putta Prima Vera, Model Colony, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradhesh- 533 103.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch, EDF-1, Beta-1, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Cr.No. 89/2025.Respondent(s)PRAYERTo enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No. 89/2025 on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioner(s):Mr.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Swami SubramanianFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.GopinathGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERThe petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 506(ii) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025and 34 of IPC in Crime No.89 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused was running M/s.Suma Refineries Private Limited and had come forward to sell his plant and machinery in favour of the defacto complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.9.9 crores, out of which Rs.1.25 crores was paid as advance. Subsequently, the defacto complainant was allowed to take possession of part of the machinery, While removing the machinery, it came to light that the second accused, by colluding with the first accused, claiming himself to be the authorized recovering agent of the bank which had attached the loan of the first accused, raised objection for the removal of the machinery from the first accused’s premises. Hence, after discussions and on the instigation of the first accused, the defacto complainant was made to enter into an undertaking with accused No.2 that he shall pay the remaining balance loan of the bank and accordingly payments were made by the second accused while taking the property. This was intervened by the original Asset Reconstruction Company and bank officials, and the entire episode came to light that A1 to A5 colluded and cheated the defacto complainant to the extent of Rs.2.88 cores. Hence, the case.3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has already remitted back Rs.1.44 crores https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025into the account of Maximus ARC which is an Asset Reconstruction Company of the A1’s properties. This was also suppressed in the complaint and the defacto complainant has also already taken away Rs.1.25 crores worth of properties. There is also suppression of the fact that the Managing Direcor of the said Reconstruction company is also an uncle of first accused in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is in custody from 15.11.2025 and there are various letter of communications made between the parties, and if any violations of the agreements, it has to be resolved only through arbitration clause, but, without availing all these remedies, police complaint have been lodged. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that total amount cheated in this case is to the extent of Rs.2.88 cores and already this Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner/A2 in this case and the investigation is in preliminary stage. Hence, he opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.6. Considering the fact that already the defacto complainant has taken away Rs.1.25 crores worth about goods and also Rs.1.44 crores of money was also remitted by the petitioner herein/A2 in favour of the Asset Reconstruction https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025Company(ARC Maximus), and it is also alleged that there are several communications taken place between the parties regarding the allegations of non payment of money, and entire transactions have been covered by way of agreement and if there is any violation of agreement, it also attracts the arbitration clause. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that:-[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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];[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.18-12-2025MpaIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoNote:1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025To1.Metropolitan Magistrate for the Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.2.The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police,Central Crime Branch, EDF-1, Beta-1, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Cr.No. 89/2025.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34524 of 2025K.RAJASEKAR J.mpaCRL OP No. 34524 of 2025 18-12-2025