Tamilselvan v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Tamilselvan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Salem District.

Crime No.04 of 2018.

..Respondent(s) 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.04 of 2018 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondent(s):

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, in Crime No.04 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, in the name of M/s. Sri Vasantham Land Promoters, had induced the de facto complainant and general public to invest money in their business on the promise of returning the same with huge returns. Believing the same, about 19 depositors had deposited a total amount of Rs.1,18,48,166/-, and thereafter the accused persons failed to repay the amount. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2026 and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He also submitted that co-accused has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11945 of 2026 dated 13.05.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, while reiterating the prosecution case, strongly opposed the grant of bail on the ground that there are about 23 depositors and that the quantum of amount allegedly cheated is around Rs.1.3 crores. She further submitted that the co-accused, who was released on bail, is an employee of the company, whereas the petitioner is the Managing Director of the company. She

also fairly submitted that so far no application has been filed for the custody of the petitioner.

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

6. Notwithstanding the above facts, while considering the factual position, since the FIR was registered in the year 2018, and the petitioner has been in incarceration since 11.04.2026, and in view of the fact that the coaccused has already been released on bail, this Court is of the view that further custody of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. 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 Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, 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 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.

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 learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Salem District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dpa 01.06.2026