High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on: 10.07.2025Pronounced on: 29.07.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.O.P(MD)Nos.6771, 8507, 7819 and 7244 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)Nos.6058, 7699, 7682 and 6059 of 2025RameshS/o.Selvaraj ... Petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025S.SuryaprakashS/o.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8507 of 2025K.KanisundaramS/o.Kannan... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7819 of 2025Manjalnathan... Petitioner/A2 in S/o.Chinnavedivasan Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7244 of 2025Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch – II Police Station,Trichy.(Crime No.3 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant in all Petitions1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.6771 & 8507 of 2025: Criminal Original Petitions filedunder Section 483 of BNSS, to release the petitioners on bail in Crime No.3 of 2025on the file of the respondent police.PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.7819 & 7244 of 2025: Criminal Original Petitions filedunder Section 482 of BNSS, to direct the petitioners to be released on bail in theevent of their arrest or their appearance in connection with Crime No.3 of 2025 onthe file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6771 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8507 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7819 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7224 of 2025For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side) (In All Petitions) For Intervenor : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan (In All Petitions) COMMON ORDERThe petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6771 and 8507 of 2025 seek bail for thealleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 406, 120(B) and 506(1) of IPC in connectionwith the case registered in Crime No.3 of 2025 of respondent police.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 20252. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.7819 and 7244 of 2025 seek anticipatory bailon apprehension of arrest by respondent police for the alleged offences underSections 409, 420, 406, 120(B) and 506(1) of IPC in connection with the caseregistered in Crime No3 of 2025 of respondent police.3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8507 of 2025 and 6771 of 2025 are AccusedNo.1 and Accused No.3 respectively and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.7244and 7819 of 2025 are Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 respectively.4. The brief case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant andAccused No.1 have known each other as the defacto complainant is doing supply ofDhal to government institutions. It is alleged that Accused No.1 instigated thedefacto complainant to invest the amount in real estate business, and within 15days, he would get the sale deed executed and further, he would receive 40% profitamount in addition to purchase of land. Believing the words of the accused, thedefacto complainant paid a total sum of Rs.9,50,48,760/- through bank and liquidcash to the accused and to the bank account of the persons as stated by the accused.After paying money, the sale deed was executed only for Rs.4,18,20,000/- instead ofRs.9,50,48,760/-, and they cheated to pay the balance amount with profit. When thedefacto complainant demanded the remaining amount, the accused personsthreatened him with dire consequences. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 20255. Both parties in all petitions argued at length and this Court considered theirarguments at the limited scope of bail and anticipatory bail.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8507 of 2025 and 6771of 2025 have submitted that the petitioners in respective petitions are Accused Nos.1and 3. He would further submit that the petitioners have not been involved in thealleged offence. In fact, Accused No.3/Ramesh sent a legal notice and lodged apolice complaint against the defacto complainant as if the defacto complainantobtained the signature of Accused No.3 in an unfilled stamp paper and cheated topay the amount as per the deal. Moreover, the defacto complainant already lodgedthe very same complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Nilagiri and the samewas closed on enquiry as there was no evidence. Again, the defacto complainantlodged the present complaint containing the same allegations. The petitioners havebeen arrested. The police took them on police custody and they were interrogated.The petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court on 14.05.2025 and 17.04.2025,respectively, by considering their incarceration period. The investigation is almostcompleted. Hence, the petitioners may be granted bail.7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.7244 of 2025 and7819 of 2025 has argued mostly relying on the arguments of the petitioners inCrl.O.P.Nos.8507 and 6771 of 2025. In addition, the petitioners are not land brokers4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025and they are government officials. They have been falsely implicated by the defactocomplainant in this case in order to grab money as they are government officials. So,they may be granted anticipatory bail.8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing forthe respondent filed a status report and submitted that the defacto complainant isrunning cow feed production company and supplying lentils items to governmentnoon meal scheme, in which way he has friendship with AccusedNo.1/Suryaprakash, who was working as DRO in Land Acquisition proceedings,Chennai. Accused No.1 offered defacto complainant that the property situated atOoty and other stations came for sale and his friends accused/Accused Nos.2 to 4,arranged a person for the purchase of that land, so asked the defacto complainantto invest the money in real estate business, which would return with 40% profits.Believing the words, the defacto complainant invested Rs.9.5 crores on various datesin the name of the accused and other persons through bank transactions and liquidcash transactions. The accused got registered sale deed in favour of the defactocomplainant only for lesser amount and the accused did not repay the balanceamount with 40% profit and thereby cheated him. The investigation is pending atthe initial stage and so far, only 10 witnesses have been examined. Moreover, theAccused No.1/Suryaprakash is involved in another case of the same nature in5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025Crime No.9 of 2024 of the District Crime Branch, Karur and that case is alsopending investigation. If the petitioners are granted bail and anticipatory bail, theywould tamper with the evidences.9.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor argued based onthe arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). In addition, thelearned counsel submitted that the defacto complainant clarified with the seller,who replied that he only received Rs.4,18,20,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed, notRs.9,17,93,760/-. Hence, the defacto complainant came to know that he was cheatedabout Rs.5 crores and demanded the accused for repayment, the accused threatenedthe defacto complainant that they would file complaint before the Income Taxdepartment and other authorities by using their official position in government andalso threatened with dire consequences as they have link with Delhi rowdies andalso they have good legal consultants at Supreme Court. He would further submitthat the earlier complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, was caused tobe closed by the accused using their influence. The intervening petitionerspecifically submitted that Accused No.1 is habituated of doing such acts and he isinvolved in a similar offence in Crime No.9 of 2024 of the District Crime Branch,Karur, his bail plea was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, thepetitions may be dismissed.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 202510. Heard and perused the available records. It is seen from the records thatthe defacto complainant and Accused No.1 are known persons. This was not denied.It is alleged that by using sweet words of the accused, the defacto complainant,being a businessman, has been fascinated to make investments of huge amount inthe real estate business, by which he would receive 40% profit in addition to theinvested amount. It is alleged by the prosecution that the defacto complainantinvested Rs.9.5 crores, but a sale deed was executed in his favour only forRs.4,18,20,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed, not Rs.9,17,93,760/-. The seller statedthat he received only Rs.4,18,20,000/- as stated in the sale deed and also gave astatement before the investigating agency. Prima facie, it shows earnings by way ofcheating. Huge money transaction dealt with between the defacto complainant andAccused No.1, as prima facie seen from the complaints by both. However, AccusedNo.1 involved in the same nature of offence in Crime No.9 of 2024 of DCB, Karur,did not deny by Accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were in judicial custody formore than 45 days. They were taken to police custody and interrogated. Already,this Court granted interim bail to the accused considering their incarceration periodand so, the same is made absolute. 11. So far as Accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, they are still absconding andseeking anticipatory bail. They were not interrogated by the respondent police so7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025far. Hence, their interrogation by the respondent police is absolutely necessary.Since the amount involved in this alleged nature of cheating and Accused Nos.2 and4 are government officials, the apprehension of the prosecution and the defactocomplainant that the accused would tamper with the evidences could not bebrushed aside. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, theanticipatory bail moved by the Accused Nos.2 and 4 is liable to be dismissed.12. In result, the Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.6771 and 8507 of 2025 are allowed and theinterim bail granted to Accused Nos.1 and 3 by this Court on 14.05.2024 and17.04.2025 made absolute. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 shall abide theconditions imposed in the interim bail until further orders.13. Insofar as the Petitions filed by the petitioners/A2 & A4 in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.7244 and 7819 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, atthis stage and hence, these petitions are dismissed. 14. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. sd/- 29/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6771 of 2025VSDTO1.THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, SRIRANGAM, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT.3.THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH – II POLICE STATION, TRICHY.5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+1. CC to P.R.PRITHIVIRAJ Advocate SR.No.8180(I) Dated :30/07/2025 Pre - Delivery Order made inCrl.O.P(MD)Nos.6771, 8507, 7819 and 7244 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)Nos.6058, 7699, 7682 and 6059 of 2025 Date :29/07/2025SBN/06.08.2025 9P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 9/9