High Court · 2025

CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTReserved on : 23.04.2025Pronounced on : 08.05.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 20251.M.Dhilip Kumar2.P.Chitra... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,Paramakudi Town Police Station,Ramanathapuram District.(Crime No.64 of 2025)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to enlarge petitioners on pre-arrestbail in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with the Crime No.64 of2025 on the file of the respondent-police. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public ProsecutorORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 28.02.20251/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, prayingto grant an order of pre-arrest bail.2. The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent-police forthe offences punishable under Sections 337, 318, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023, in Crime No.64 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant / Taluk SupplyOfficer, during an inspection at a shop licensed to the petitioner as an E-SevaCentre, found duplicate family cards belonging to members of the general public.Upon enquiry, he came to know that the employees appointed by the secondpetitioner, based on the needs of the customers, were engaged in making correctionsto their family cards. For this purpose, they reportedly scanned the original familycards, made the necessary corrections using the computer system, and subsequentlyprinted and handed over the altered family cards to the customers. According to thesaid officer, the acts committed by the employees of the second petitioner constitutean offence of forging and a clear violation of the rules and regulations prescribed bythe Government. Consequently, he lodged a formal complaint. Hence, the case.4. Mr.R.Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that thepetitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as allegedby the prosecution; a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He further2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025submitted that the entire presumption of the defacto complainant is misconceived,and in fact, none of the allegations made by him have taken place, particularly theallegation with respect to the functioning of the e-Seva Centre in violation of therules and regulations. The centre has been established exclusively to cater to theneeds of the public who seek assistance in making corrections to their personalidentification cards issued by various Government departments, such as name orother particulars. In the shop operated by the second petitioner, such services werecarried out only by the employees based on customer request. There was noviolation of rules and regulations. However, during the inspection, the said officerappears to have wrongly assumed that the employees were themselves effectingchanges in the particulars of identity records, without directly interacting with orverifying the involvement of the respective customers. Acting on this erroneousassumption, he formed an incorrect opinion and proceeded to lodge a complaint.He, further, submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence alleged,however, they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hetherefore prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submitted that investigation hasnot yet been completed in this case. He further submitted that the accused persons3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025had scanned the original identity cards, made the necessary corrections using acomputer system, and subsequently printed and handed over the altereddocuments to the customers. According to the said officer, the acts committed by theemployees of the second petitioner constitute an offence of forgery and a clearviolation of the rules and regulations prescribed by the Government. He furthercontended that, if an order of pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioners, they willtamper the evidence. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary toknow the modus of crime in this case. Further, custody of the computer system andthe printer used by the petitioners are necessary to unearth the truth. Accordingly,he prayed to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.6. Heard on both sides. Perused the records. 7. Perusal of the records reveal that the e-Seva license holders do not possessthe authority to print family cards. Prima facie, there appears to be no element offorgery involved in the process. However, the act of the petitioners may amount toviolation of the terms and conditions of the e-Seva licence. To be noted, theaforesaid observation is recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding this bailapplication alone and it will not, in any way, cause prejudice or affect the case of theprosecution to establish its case during trial. In fact, if the defacto complainant is ofthe view that the petitioners have misused the licence, the defacto complainant is4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025well within his rights to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the said licence. Inthe facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the custodialinterrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners have permanentresidence and deep roots in the society and therefore, there is less possibility forabsconding. Considering the same as well as the gravity of the offences allegedagainst the petitioners and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners toreform themselves, this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to thepetitioners subject to the following conditions.(i) The petitioners shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of theirarrest or in the event of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, within a period of 15 days from date onwhich the order copy is made ready, upon executing a bond for a sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each along with two sureties each for alike sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one ofidentity proofs to ensure their identity.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025(iii) The petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent-police daily at10.00 a.m. until further orders and co-operate with the investigation.(iv) The petitioners shall surrender their computer system, colour printer, andall other electronic gadgets for the purpose of investigation, if the same have notalready been surrendered. (v) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by policeas and when required.(vi) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vii) The petitioners shall also not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thewitnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.(viii) The petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of theconcerned Jurisdictional Magistrate Court.(ix) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the concerned Magistrate.(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate ordersagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025are imposed by him / her as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shajivs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 08/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. palTO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAMDISTRICT.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAMDISTRICT.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PARAMAKUDI TOWN POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRASHIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4039 of 2025 Date :08/05/20257/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.4039 of 2025NBF/SAR/09.05.2025 8P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8