← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/12373/2026granted

Sangeetha Surulirajan v. The State Rep

2026-06-02Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sangeetha ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police, Puducherry.

..Respondent(s) K.Narayanan .... Intervenor/Defacto complainant [Permitted to intervene vide order of this Court dated 02.06.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.8816 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.12373 of 2026] Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sivabalan For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) assisted by Mr.M.Thamizhmani Mr.Vinoth Ravi For Intervenor :

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) read with and 3(5) of

BNS @ Section 318(4), 316(5), 319(2) of BNS r/w 3(5) of BNS in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused persons, induced the defacto complainant to invest money by falsely representing that they were engaged in real estate and financial investment activities. It is alleged that the accused, who were known to the defacto complainant as tenants, gained his confidence and induced him to transfer funds into various bank accounts promising assured returns. It is further alleged that a total sum of about Rs.4,53,23,658/- was collected and subsequently misappropriated, after which the accused absconded. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that she has been in custody since 03.03.2026. It was further submitted that A1 had induced the de facto complainant to invest money in his business for better returns and that the petitioner is the wife of A1 and has not committed any offence. It was also contended that A1 had misused the petitioner's account for transactions to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, has cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of 4,53,23,658/-, and that the petitioner is a main accused and the ₹ mastermind of the offence. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry), appearing for the respondent, reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel for the intervenor and strongly opposed the bail application.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. This is a case involving money transactions between A1 and the de facto complainant, and the petitioner is the wife of A1. Though the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently opposed the bail application, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 03.03.2026 and the fact that the petitioner is a woman, this Court is of the view that further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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 learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry, and subject to the following conditions: [a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

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

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

02.06.2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dpa 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 learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police, Puducherry. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dpa 02.06.2026 (2/2)