J.James v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN J.James ..Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13489 of 2026 J.Alex ..Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13500 of 2026 Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, CBCID-OCU Police Station, Coimbatore.
Crime No.01 of 2025.
..Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.01 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent(s):
Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 409 of IPC, in Crime No.01 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with the other accused, induced the de facto complainant and other victims to invest money in "Oli Charitable Trust" by representing that the invested amounts would be returned from the NRI fund of the Trust. Believing such representations, the victims invested substantial sums of money. However, the accused persons failed to repay the invested amounts. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are about ten accused in the case and that the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.13489 of 2026 is arrayed as A10, while the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.13500 of 2026 is arrayed as A9. He would further submit that the petitioners are the sons of one Mr. Joseph, the Managing Trustee of "Oli Charitable Trust", and that they were not originally named as accused in the case. He further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement of their father, who is arrayed as A2 and that A2, as well as the other accused, namely A4 and A7, have already been released on bail. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and fairly conceded that A2, as well as the other accused, namely A4 and
A7, have already been released on bail. However, he submitted that there are about 350 victims in the case and that the accused had induced the de facto complainant and other victims to invest money by falsely representing that they would receive funds from an NRI source and that the invested amounts would be repaid. By such representations, the accused allegedly cheated the victims to the tune of Rs.7 crores. He further submitted that no recovery has so far been effected from the accused. Therefore, he contended that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it may adversely affect the recovery of the defrauded amount.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named as accused in the FIR and have been implicated only on the basis of the confession statement of A2. In the case on hand, the co-accused, namely A2, A4 and A7, have already been released on statutory bail, as noted by the trial Court in its order dated 14.05.2026. Considering the fact that the petitioners were not originally named in the FIR, that they have allegedly been implicated solely on the basis of the confession of A2, and that A2 has already been enlarged on bail, the benefit of parity is also required to be extended to the petitioners. Hence, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, and the fact that the co-accused have already been
released on bail, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, 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 twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m until further orders; [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.
01.06.2026 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3.The Inspector of Police, CBCID-OCU Police Station, Coimbatore. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dpa CRL OP Nos. 13489 of 2026 & 13500 of 2026.
01.06.2026