Dharani @ Dharani Viswanathan v. State By Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-05-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
1. Dharani @ Dharani Viswanathan W/o.Rammohan, 1 D, Kgeyes eternity, Parvathy street, Besant Nagar, Chennai600 090
2. Nalli Viswanath @ Nalli Silks Viswanathan S/o.Nalli Kuppusamy, No.9, Nageswara Road, Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600017
3. Pavan @ Pavan Sirish Dey S/o.Kishanlal Dey, No.28, Flat E 11, 2nd floor, Narayanasamy Apartments, Malaviya Avenue 3rd street, Adyar, Chennai 600020
4. Subramani @ Subramnian S/o.Chellappan, 36 B, Veerappa Nagar, 2nd Street, Alwar Thirunagar, Valasarawakkam, Chennai 600087 Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai, Chennai District. (Cr.No.55 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.55 of 2025 on the file of Respondent Police For Petitioner(s):
Mr. D Bennington K.K.Pradeep Raj For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.55 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant namely Shanmugaraju was looking for his son's admission for the academic year 2022 in VIT University. It is alleged that he got acquainted with the 1 st accused named in the FIR as Senthil and the said Senthil has promised the de-facto complainant to get an admission for his son in VIT Univesity for the course of B.Tech and received a sum of Rs.57,00,000/-, neither the 1 st accused obtained
the seat for the de-facto complainant's son nor returned the amount to the defacto complainant. Hence the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the overtact against the petitioners as per the FIR is that they have assisted the 1 st accused namely Senthil in getting the money from the de-facto complainant. Even as per the FIR, the petitioners have not received any money from the de-facto complainant. As per the allegations set out in the FIR, the 1 st accused Senthil had misused the petitioners' name and collected money from the de-facto complainant and they have no nexus with him. A mere reading of the FIR will reveal the fact that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused only in order to grab money from them, which was alleged to have given by the de-facto complainant to the 1 st accused. However, they are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
4. Learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that, the de-facto complainant's specific complaint is that in the year 2022, in order to get admission for his son, the de-faco complainant had paid a sum of Rs.57,00,000/- to the 1 st accused. Neither the accused obtained the seat nor returned the money to the de-facto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the transaction had taken place in the year 2022 and the complaint was lodged in the year 2024. Moreover, giving Rs.57,00,000/- for getting B.Tech seat is highly unbelievable.
6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, for CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 appear before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for further interrogation.
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioners 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 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];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
16-05-2025 ASI/UMA To
1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai, Chennai District. (Cr.No.55 of 2025).
2. The Metropolitan Magistrate, for CCB and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
ASI/UMA 16-05-2025