M.Sudhakar v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.7346 of 2025 M. Sudhakar, (Male/Aged 34 years) Son of Muthu ... Petitioner/Accused-1 Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D South Ariyalur (Crime No.03/2024) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.03 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr. C. Iyyappa Raj For Respondent : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.02.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.3 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 344, 370, 419, 420 of IPC and 10 r/w 24(b) of Emigration Act, 1983.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is known to the defacto complainant; that since the defacto complainant was searching for a job, the petitioner introduced A2 to the defacto complainant; that A2 promised to secure a job at Thailand for the defacto complainant and accordingly a sum of Rs.60,000/- was transferred by the defacto complainant to the account of A3; that the defacto complainant was thereafter sent to Thailand and came to know that he was employed to do online scam fraud at Thailand and returned to India and lodged a complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that the petitioner only introduced A2 to the defacto complainant; that he was not aware of the job said to have been offered to the defacto complainant and that in any case since further custody of 2/6
the petitioner is not required , the petitioner may be released on bail.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner had introduced the other accused to the defacto complainant and that he has no bad antecedents.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, the period of incarceration, the fact that there is no previous case against the petitioner, and that 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 Judicial Magistrate II, Jayankondam, Ariyalur District, and on further conditions that: [a] 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;
3/6
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily 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.
19.03.2025 bga 4/6
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate II, Jayankondam, Ariyalur District.
2. The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D South Ariyalur (Crime No.03/2024)
3. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Jayankondam
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6
SUNDER MOHAN., J.
bga Crl.O.P.No.7346 of 2025 19.03.2025 6/6