High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 01/08/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAICRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)Nos.10209 and 10220 of 2025S.KarthikeyanS/o.Sekar ...Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Aranthangai Police Station, Pudukottai District.(Crime No.301 of 2025) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateshwar Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)For Intervenor : Mr.S.Veerapandiselvaraj in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10209 of 2025For Intervenor : Mr.R.Prasanna in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10220 of 20251/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 2025 PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER:- For Bail in Crime No.301 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 11.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 238, 303(2), 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.301 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeksbail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and defacto complainant'sdeceased son are close friends. The defacto complainant's son collected money fromhis friends Sivasurya and Nanthakumar and gave it to the petitioner for sendingthose persons abroad, but the petitioner has not taken any steps. When the same wasquestioned by the deceased, the petitioner failed to return the money and cheatedhim. Due to depression, on 10.07.2025, the deceased committed suicide by hanginghimself. At that time, the petitioner came to the deceased's house and took thedeceased's mobile phone intending to delete the evidence and leaving the spot.Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and the case has been registered.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at allinvolved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner and the deceased2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 2025are close friends. The deceased collected money from his friends, namely Sivasuriyaand Nanthakumar, to send abroad, but he did not arrange job for them. Two daysprior to the occurrence, one Sathaiya arranged a compromise talk between thedeceased and his friends regarding repayment of money in Sathaiya's home. Further,the deceased requested to grant time for repayment because of the reason that thedeceased's father is undergoing treatment for cancer, but the above said Sathaiya andhis friends, Sivasuriya and Nanthakumar, abused the deceased with filthy words andassaulted the deceased. As per the prosecution, after the occurrence, the petitionerwent to the deceased's house and took the deceased's mobile phone and deleted thevideo. But the video is now available and in that video, the deceased alleged againstthe two persons and did not aver even a single word as against the petitioner.4. He would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi,allowed the custody application on 24.07.2025. The petitioner was taken into policecustody on the same day, and his mobile phone was recovered, one video was there,and it was form part of the case diary and again, he was produced to judicial custody.The learned counsel further submits that the respondent police sent a daily situationreport (DSR) to the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, on 11.07.2025 as CrimeNo.301 of 2025 registered under Section 194 of BNSS. Later, the petitioner wasremanded in Crime No.301 of 2025 under Sections 108, 238, 303(2), 318(4) of BNS,3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 20252023 and he also produced the report to that effect. Hence, it is crystal clear that thepetitioner was implicated in this case with an ulterior motive. The petitioner is incustody for the past 21 days and hence, he seeks bail.5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for therespondent police submits that the deceased and the petitioner are close friends.The petitioner is doing manpower agency and sending persons abroad. The deceasedreceived the money from some persons and gave it to the petitioner for sending thosepersons abroad, but the petitioner failed to do so. When the same was questioned bythe deceased, the accused failed to return the money and cheated him. Hence, onmental depression, the deceased committed suicide by way of hanging by uploadinga video. After seeing that video, the petitioner rushed to the deceased's home andsuddenly he took the cellphone of the deceased and deleted the video. Hence, hestrongly objected to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the intervenor in Crl.M.P(MD)No.10220 of 2025submits that the defacto complainant is the father of the deceased. The petitioner is anagent who sends people abroad for work. He asked the deceased to refer thedeceased's friends. Believing the words of the accused, introduced his friends, namelyNanthakumar and Sivasuriya, to the accused for overseas job opportunities. Thepetitioner has received Rs.9,60,000/- from one Sivasuriya and Rs.10,60,000/ from one4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 2025Nanthakumar partly through the deceased and partly from the said persons. Afterreceiving the money, the petitioner failed to obtain any job and also refused to returnthe money and cheated the deceased and his friends. When the deceased questionedthe same, the petitioner threatened him and further caused mental agony. Due towhich, the defacto complainant's son committed suicide by hanging on 10.07.2025and before suicide, he sent a video to his friends about the suicide. After seeing thevideo, the petitioner rushed to the deceased's house and took the mobile phone of thedeceased and deleted the video message. He would further submit that the saidmobile phone is yet to be recovered and the money is also to be recovered from theaccused. Investigation is in progress and if the accused is released on bail, he wouldseverely prejudice the investigation and he may tamper with evidence. Hence, hestrongly objected to grant bail to the petitioner.7. The learned counsel for the intervenor in Crl.M.P(MD)No.10209 of 2025submits that the deceased was a friend of the intervenor. In the month of November2024, the deceased introduced him to the petitioner, who is an agent, who arrangesjobs overseas. The intervenor has sent Rs.2,75,000/- through online transaction to thedeceased and the deceased paid the amount to the accused. On 28.11.2024, theintervenor's brother gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused for getting visa. In the 2ndweek of December 2024, the accused received Rs.4,85,000/-, stating that the visa had5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 2025been ready and would be received within one or two days, but later said that his visawas cancelled. The petitioner informed the intervenor that the job has been arrangedand sent him the flight ticket, but no further document was sent by the accused.When the intervenor asked the deceased about the issue, he told the intervenor thatthe petitioner had cheated him by not arranging jobs. On 06.07.2025, the accusedassured the intervenor that he would arrange job within a few days or he wouldreturn the money. On 10.07.2025, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Beforecommitting suicide, the deceased had sent a video to his friends. The petitioner wentto the deceased's house and took the mobile and deleted the video. The mobile phoneis yet to be recovered and the investigation is pending. Hence, he strongly objected togrant bail to the petitioner.8. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and thegravity of the offence and also the manner of occurrence allegedly committed by thepetitioner and taking note of the fact that the petitioner had allegedly took the mobilephone and deleted the material evidence and the petitioner was arrested only on11.07.2025 and considering the short period of incarceration and that if the petitioneris released on bail he may tamper and hamper with the investigation, this Court isnot inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.12589 of 20259. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, theconnected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. sd/- 01/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. vsdTO1 The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukottai District.2 The Officer Incharge,District Jail, Pudukkottai.3 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12589 of 2025 Date :01/08/2025NBF/SAR- /26/08/2025/ 7P/4CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7