Kumaravel v. The State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Kumaravel ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City.

(Crime No.26 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.26 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.Guruprasad for Mr.G.C.Nelson Britto For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Dayalan

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.12.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and Sections 4(1), 76(1) of the Chit Funds Act in Crime No.26 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner namely Kumaravel joining hands with his mother involved in conducting unregistered chits and collected a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs from the defacto complainant and subsequently has not come forward to return back the money. Hence, the complaint was lodged and the petitioner was arrested and apprehending arrest, his mother also preferred separate petition for anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner has already initiated civil suit for recovery of money and while so, the defacto complainant has lodged present false complaint as if the petitioner has to pay money and further submitted that there are lot of transaction taken place between the parties and according to the petitioner, defacto complainant has to pay money to these petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor produced the copies of the receipts issued to him at the time of collecting chit amount and 2/6

also the written statement filed by the defacto complainant before the Civil Suit. . He further submitted that the petitioner along with his mother had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs. He further submitted that, promissory note executed by the petitioner is a fabricated. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that investigation in this case is at preliminary stage and no money is recovered in this case. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. I have gone through the materials placed on record.

7. It revealed that, alleged transactions taken place prior to 2019 and thereafter exchange of legal notice for the purpose of demanding payment of money is also issued and in this regard, civil suits are also pending and also considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 3/6

only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs 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 make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

4/6

[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 22.01.2026 sma Note :

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.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma To

1. Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City.

3.The Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

22.01.2026 6/6