R.Srihari Reddy v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 14.05.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.P.DHANABAL CRL.O.P.No.11906 of 2026 R.Srihari Raddy, S/o.Rami Reddy ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by:

The Inspector of Police, CCB, ACP-I, Team VI.

Tambaram, Chennai.

.... Respondent PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner in Cr.No.29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested on 02.04.2026 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC of BNS in Cr.No.29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his wife instigated the defacto complainant to invest money in their 1/6

construction business by assuring returns of Rs.2,07,50,000/- and the defacto complainant also invested Rs.1,04,00,000/-. But the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant without paying the money as promised by him. Hence the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the defacto complainant filed two suits; one for recovery of money and another for permanent injunction. Further the petitioner also paid 50% of the amount to the defacto complainant and her relatives. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 02.04.2026. Hence he prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.

The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant would submit that the defacto complainant filed intervening petition and the same was returned. He would further submit that huge amount of Rs.2.00 crores involved in this case and the petitioner along with his wife cheated the defacto complainant without paying the money. Hence he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner collected Rs.1.04 crores from the defacto complainant assuring to return the same with profit of Rs.2.07 Crores. 2/6

But the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant without paying the money. Further the parties have entered into Joint Venture Agreement and MoU and there are Civil Suits pending between the parties. Hence he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the rival submissions on either side, nature of offences and the fact that the dispute between the parties are seems to be civil in nature and already there are two civil suits pending between the parties and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tambaram, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required.

3/6

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

14.05.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order cgi 4/6

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1. The Inspector of Police, CCB, ACP-I, Team VI. Tambaram, Chennai.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tambaram.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

Copy to:

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal. 5/6

P.DHANABAL ,J cgi CRL OP.No.11906 of 2026 14.05.2026 6/6