Zameer v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 13.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Zameer S/o. Mahaboobjan .. Petitioner / Accused No.3 Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector Of Police, CCD-I Chennai City Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondent [Cr. No.12 of 2025 ] PRAYER: - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.12 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Mariappan For Respondent : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate [Criminal side]

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.02.2025, 1/5

seeking bail in Crime No.12 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 61(2) of B.N.S., 2003 and Section 66(D) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act .

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 along with other accused had threatened the defacto complainant that they were CBI officials and stating that the defacto complainant had committed fraud and directed to transfer a sum of Rs.51 lakhs through an account and a sum of Rs.87 lakhs to the account of the petitioner. Thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged fraud committed by A1; that the petitioner has no bad antecedents; that he had provided his account number to A1 as A1 promised to get loan for his business purposes and he is not aware of the alleged transactions; that he is not aware of the deposit of money or withdrawal by third party; and that the petitioner has identified those persons to the investigation officer and hence prayed to 2/5

grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed that the petitioner was not directly involved in the alleged fraud and that his bank account has been utilized by the other accused for the purpose of committing the fraud as the petitioner had not gained monetarily.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, the nature of allegations against the petitioner and since further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-XI, Saidapet, Chennai. [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the 3/5

Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] 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 himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 13.03.2025 mjs SUNDER MOHAN., J.

4/5

mjs To

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate-XI, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector Of Police, CCD-I Chennai City Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.7237 of 2025 13.03.2025 5/5