Madras High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025 PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.13 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.03.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.13 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. This Court, by an order dated 03.04.2025, has already granted interim bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner was released on interim bail by this Court, she was admittedly not called for investigation on a single occasion. However, he submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the original title 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025deeds, either of herself or her family members, to the value of Rs.50,00,000/- as surety before the trial Court in the concerned crime number, to show her bonafide and has also filed written arguments to that effect.3. The learned counsel for the intervenor, by filing written arguments, submitted that the de-facto complainant had already repaid a sum of Rs.43,41,029/- into the concerned accounts of the accused persons. Moreover, this Court had already referred the matter to mediation for settlement. On the last occasion during the mediation, the prosecution side produced a CDR copy, which clearly revealed a nexus between the accused persons and a company, namely Port City Limited. All the amounts paid by the de-facto complainant, based on the instigation of the 1st accused, were credited to the Port City Limited account. It was the 1st accused who issued authorization letters 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025to Port City Limited to transfer the de-facto complainant’s money to that account. He further submitted that several criminal complaints had been lodged against the 1st accused, and the same are pending before the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, in respect of the same issue. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the 1st accused is very much necessary in this case in order to recover the jewels pledged by the de-facto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the de-facto complainant’s husband and the 1st accused’s husband are friends, and both are working in the marine sector. The de-facto complainant is a cancer patient, and she had already pledged 135 sovereigns of gold before various banks for her treatment. The 1st accused is running a private finance company under the 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025name and style of “Annai Finance”. The 1st accused’s husband canvassed the de-facto complainant, through her husband, to re-pledge all the jewels in Annai Finance for a huge amount. Believing their words, the de-facto complainant agreed. The 1st accused invested Rs.45,95,000/- and allegedly forged all the mortgage loan documents relating to the jewels pledged by the de-facto complainant. The said jewels were re-pledged with the 1st accused’s finance company, and Rs.53,42,000/- was given to the de-facto complainant. On 04.01.2024, the de-facto complainant further pledged her property with the 1st accused’s finance company for Rs.5,00,000/-, and her mother pledged her property for Rs.49,50,000/-. On the same day, the de-facto complainant repaid Rs.24,50,000/- towards the jewels and requested the return of part of the jewels. Thereafter, on 08.01.2024, she repaid a further sum of Rs.5,15,000/-, and on 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 202509.01.2024, she again paid Rs.2,43,000/- and Rs.4,00,029/- to the 2nd accused's account as per instruction given by the 1st accused. On 10.01.2024, as directed by the 1st accused, the de-facto complainant transferred Rs.7,33,000/- to the 2nd accused’s account.5. He further submitted that in total, the de-facto complainant repaid Rs.43,41,029/- to the accused persons’ accounts for redeeming the jewels. Despite receiving the entire amount, the accused persons cheated the de-facto complainant and did not return the jewels. He submitted that taking advantage of the de-facto complainant’s medical condition, the accused persons cleverly planned the transaction to cheat the de-facto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 20256. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR itself states that the de-facto complainant had pledged the jewels before various banks, and when the jewels were about to be auctioned, she sought help from the petitioner. In total, the petitioner had pledged 250 sovereigns of gold jewels and an additional typed set of papers have been filed to that effect. Out of these, 135 sovereigns of gold jewels had already been returned for the amount paid by her. Now, 115 sovereigns of gold jewels remain, for which no payment has been made. The pledged amount is Rs.53,00,000/- with interest. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant had also availed a loan of more than Rs.50,00,000/- for immovable properties from the petitioner’s company, which remains unpaid. He submitted that for the amounts repaid by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner had returned 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025the corresponding articles. Therefore, there is no element of cheating on the part of the petitioner.7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and taking note of the fact that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.03.2025, and was subsequently released on interim bail by this Court on 03.04.2025, and that as the date of registration of FIR is 05.03.2025, by this time most of the investigation might have been completed, and that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at this stage, and also considering the bonafide expressed by the petitioner to produce title deeds to the value of Rs.50,00,000/-, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 20258. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi and on further conditions that :- [a] since the petitioner is on interim bail, she is directed to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi, for execution of the bond, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;[b] the petitioner shall produce original title deeds, either of herself or her family members, to the value of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), as security before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi;9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025[c] 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;[d] the petitioner shall furnish her residential address and contact number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi. If the petitioner changes her residential address, she shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi;[e] the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders;10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025[f] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[g] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;[h] 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 herself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and;[i] If the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 20259. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (P V M J) 17.09.2025mkn12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6101 of 2025P.VADAMALAI,J.mknTO1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi District.2.The Officer-in-charge, District Women Prison, Pudukkottai.3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Thoothukudi District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Pre-Delivery order made IN CRL OP(MD) No.6101 of 2025andCRL MP(MD). No.4541 of 2025 Date : 17/09/202513/13