Madras High CourtCRL A/312/2026allowed

Rani v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

2026-03-25Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Rani W/o.Kamalakasan, Residing at D.No. 93A/2, Main Road, Tittakudi Taluk, Melore Post, Marudhathur, Cuddalore 606 111.

..Appellant(s) Vs 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tittagudi, Cuddalore.

2.Inspector of Police Avinankudi Police Station, Cuddalore.

Cr.No. 151/2025.

3.Velmurugan S/o.Ramachandiran, 130, Middle Street, Nithinatham, Thittakudi, Cuddalore.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER:

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Cuddalore, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant seeking bail in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026,

For Appellant(s):

Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana, GA(Crl.Side) for R1 & R2

JUDGMENT

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant/ third respondent is that he has studied upto 10th standard. The accused 1 & 2, who are residents of the same village, have induced him on the assurance of getting a job in Singapore and received an amount of Rs.9,39,000/- from him on various dates from 02.07.2023 to 18.08.2024. Later, they took him to a manpower agency where he was given Singapore visa. On verification, it was found that the visa was a fabricated one. When the de facto complainant asked for return of money, the accused repaid an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- and refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,59,000/-. The further allegation is that when the de facto complainant had asked for return of balance money, the accused abused him by calling his caste name. Later, the first accused went to Singapore and he called the de facto complainant in his mobile through WhatsApp and also abused him by calling his caste name and threatened him

saying he should not take action against him. Based on the complaint given on 23.10.2025, the second respondent registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2025 for offences under Sections 296(b) and 318(4) of BNSS and Section 67 of IT Act r/w. Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The appellant, who is the second accused, filed Crl.MP No.3720 of 2026 seeking bail before the Special Court, Cuddalore. By order dated 07.03.2026, the trial Court had dismissed the bail petition. Challenging the same, the present Appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant(A2) is the wife of A1. There was a money dispute between the appellant's husband/A1 and the de facto complainant and the appellant has been unnecessarily roped in in the money dispute. Though the de facto complainant/ third respondent had claimed that money was given by him on several dates, no proof has been submitted by him to the police to show that the amounts were paid to the husband of the appellant. Only in order to make out a case under the SC & ST(PoA) Act, a false and exaggerated complaint has been given and an attempt has been made to settle the financial dispute by police action.

The appellant had approached this Court in Crl.OP No.31258 of 2025 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 17.11.2025 in the said Crl.OP, the appellant surrendered before the trial Court and the trial Court, without taking into consideration that a case of a financial dispute has been

exaggerated and a false complaint has been given, had dismissed the petition. The learned counsel would submit that the appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2026 and the appellant has been in custody for more than 19 days. The appellant is a lady, who has no role in the alleged financial transaction between her husband(A1) and the de facto complainant. He would reiterate that the provisions of the SC/ST(PoA) Act have been specifically invoked to ensure that the appellant is denied the benefit of Anticipatory Bail and arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the appellant, along with her husband, induced the de facto complainant on the assurance of getting a job in Singapore and received a sum of Rs.9,39,000/- and refunded only an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.5,59,500/- and she would further submit that the visa is found to be a forged one. When the de facto complainant had asked for return of the money, the appellant has abused him by calling his caste name and the husband of the appellant has also threatened the de facto complainant through WhatsApp from Singapore and she would further submit that investigation has been completed and absconding charge sheet has been filed before the trial Court.

5. Despite service of notice and printing of the name of the third respondent in the cause list, there is no representation for the third respondent.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first and the second respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, it is a case on account of pending money dispute. The appellant is A2 in this case. The allegation is that the appellant, along with her husband, had received amounts on various dates on the assurance of obtaining job and later, refused to pay the balance amount and threatened the de facto complainant by calling his caste name. It is also not in dispute that the investigation has been completed and the final report has filed before the Court and not been taken on file. Since the investigation is completed, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal may be allowed and bail may be granted to the appellant.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026 is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act,

Cuddalore, 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 passbook to ensure their identity;

[b] the appellant shall appear before the Special Court for trial of cases under the SC & ST(PoA) Act Cuddalore on all working days at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter, on receipt of summons from the learned Special Judge.

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

[d] the appellant 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 appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant 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 appellant thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal Stands allowed.

25-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy today (25.03.2026) DN To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tittagudi, Cuddalore.

2.Inspector of Police Avinankudi Police Station, Cuddalore.

Cr.No. 151/2025.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Cuddalore.

5.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Cuddalore

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.

DN 25-03-2026