Sakthivel @ Srikanth v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sakthivel @ Srikanth ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Sub Inspector Of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry.

Crime No.21/2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This criminal Original petition is filed under Section 483(1) (b) r/w 528 of BNSS., to modify the condition in para no.6 (i) & (ii) passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.484 of 2026 on 11.03.2026, in Crime No.21 of 2026.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Govindaraju For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking modification of the condition in para 6 (i) & (ii) passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.484 of 2026 dated 11.03.2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while granting bail, the trial Court imposed a condition directing the petitioner to

produce a copy of the document evidencing property worth Rs.10,00,000/- and is not entitled to alienate, transfer or dispose of the property until the disposal of the pending case, which is erroneous one. He further submitted that, in the dismissal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Puducherry in Crl.MP.No.404 of 2026 dated 04.03.2026, it has been recorded that the petitioner had repaid a sum of Rs.20,24,000/-. However, despite such repayment, the same was not properly considered, resulting in the passing of an onerous order. He further submitted that the petitioner has already repaid the amount received towards the land cost to the defacto complainant, and the suppression of this fact has led to the imposition of an unjust condition. It was also contended that the petitioner is not in a position to comply with the said condition and that his liberty is being curtailed on account of such an onerous condition. He further submitted that he is in judicial custody since 12.02.2026. Hence, the modification petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that there is still due to the defacto complainant and, therefore there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.MP.No.484 of 2026 dated 11.03.2026. Hence, he strongly opposed for the said condition.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reference in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Puducherry, regarding the payment of Rs.20,24,000/-, this Court is of the view that the condition imposed in para 6(i) is onerous and the same is liable to be relaxed.

6. Further, with regard to the condition requiring the petitioner to sign before the Karaikal Town Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m, for a period of 30 days, taking into account that the petitioner is a resident of Chennai, the said condition is modified that the petitioner shall sign before the Karaikal Town Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m, for a period of 15 (fifteen) days, considering the necessity of his presence for the purpose of investigation.

7. In the result, as indicated above, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed.

23-03-2026 DRL Note : Issue order copy on 23.03.2026

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL To

1. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Ariankuppam Police Station, Puducherry.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

23-03-2026