Ayyamperumal v. The State Of Tamil Nadu The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ayyamperumal ..Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Villupuram District.
(in Crime No.2/2025) ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner:
Mr.N.Sakthi Saravanan For Respondent:
Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 & 5 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner by making false representations regarding the credit of Rs.18,000/- crores to a trust and by impersonating RBI officials through fake persons, induced the defacto complainant and others to part with a sum of Rs.8.60 crores, thereby committing the alleged offence.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the very fact that the defacto complainant has invested huge sum of Rs.8.60 crores for the sake of 18,000 crores profit cannot expect from the prosecution to detain the petitioner for the purpose of investigation. The learned counsel would further submit that, on the face of the FIR, the falsity exist. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also invite the attention of this Court that in respect of Crime No.1 of 2025, the petitioner has already obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD).No.17323 of 2025 dated 13.10.2025. Only because of obtaining the anticipatory bail, the present FIR came to be registered, which contention, on the face of it cannot be faulted. The learned counsel has also filed copy of the earlier FIR wherein the occurrence took place during the period from 24.03.2015 to 25.08.2019, whereas the present FIR is also for the same period overlapping to each other namely for the period from 01.01.2013 to 10.12.2023. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate would strongly oppose the application on the ground that the petitioner has got one previous case and that is also a similar offence. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this is a case where according to the prosecution, the defacto complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs.8.60 crores on the pretext of sharing profit on the sale of the Eridiam, which according to the FIR is Rs.18,000 crores. The very fact that the petitioner has invested huge sum of Rs.8.60 crores for the sake of receiving 18,000 crores profit would indicate certain amount of the complicity of the defacto complainant by believing such possibility. In such view of the factual position and considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the occurrence is of the year 2019, and the nature of the occurrence, and upon the further fact that the petitioner has already obtained anticipatory bail in Crime No.1 of 2025 (Crl.O.P.(M.D).No.17323 of 2025), this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the instant case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on
anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
19-06-2026 NSL To
1. The The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Villupuram District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
NSL 19-06-2026