← Library
Madras High Court/12423/2025granted

K.Mohan v. State By,

2025-10-29Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.12423 of 2025 1.K.Mohan 2.Deepika 3.Naveen Premkumar 4.Ponselvam .. Petitioners

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Redhills. (Crime No.284 of 2025) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.284 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.284 of 2025 seek anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were running a public charitable trust in the name of Aram Child Foundation Trust and had collected a huge amount of money to the tune of Rs.13.11 crores during the period 2021 to 2025, till the date of registration of the FIR, by publishing various advertisements and engaging various telecallers. It is further alleged that the said activities were organized and carried out under the instructions of the petitioners herein. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been running the charitable trust for a longer period and after calculating the total amount collected by the trust during the period 2021 to 2025, it has been erroneously alleged that the petitioners had cheated the general public and misappropriated the funds. He further submitted that there was no cheating or misappropriation involved, and that the petitioners have been rendering charitable services continuously for the past four years. He further submitted that though telecallers were engaged, it was only one of the modes adopted for collecting donations, and there was nothing illegal in such collection. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 2/6

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that it is a case of organized crime, wherein the petitioners had approached various persons under the guise of showing photographs of orphaned children and collected a huge amount in the name of donations during the period from 2021 to 2025. It has further revealed that the petitioners were not actually running any children's home, and the properties worth about Rs.2 crores have been identified in connection with the offence. He further submitted that the telecallers engaged by the petitioners were also arrested and their statements have implicated the petitioners in the commission of offence. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the case pertains to the running of a public charitable trust. It is also stated that the petitioners had collected a sum of Rs.13.11 crores during the period from 2021 to 2025. It is further alleged that the said amount has been misappropriated by the petitioners. It is also stated that on verification of the accounts maintained by the petitioners, diversion of funds has been detected.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, nature of allegations and the manner in which the alleged 3/6

occurrence had taken place, and since the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for investigating the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition 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;

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; 4/6

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

29.10.2025 drl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Redhills.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl CRL.O.P.No.12423 of 2025 (2/2) 29.10.2025 6/6