Raja v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Raja ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, DCB Vellore Police Station, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.

Crime No.5 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of in Cr.No.5 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. C.Raja For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.04.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 465, 466, 471, 420 & 468 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused was involved in the alleged offence of cheating and dishonesty by receiving a sum of Rs.17 Lakhs under the pretext of securing a Government job. Pursuant to the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded in judicial custody. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and that he was not named in the initial First Information Report (FIR). He further submits that the petitioner was subsequently impleaded in the case solely in furtherance of a confession statement given by the co-accused, A4. He also submits that the primary co-accused, namely A1, A2, and A4, have already been released on bail, and therefore, the petitioner seeks bail on the ground of parity. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, but does not seriously dispute the factum of the release of the co-accused A1, A2, and A4 on bail. He further contended that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a strong possibility that he would also tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses, leading to a possibility of recidivism.

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

6. From the submissions made by either side, it is an admitted fact that the co-accused A1, A2, and A4, including the person whose confession statement led to the implication of the petitioner, have already been released on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the person who gave the confession statement has already been enlarged on bail, this Court would like to show parity to the petitioner and is inclined to allow the bail application on the same conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their 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 Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, Vellore District and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 respondent Police daily at 10:30 a.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.

08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni 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 Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, Vellore District. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. 3.The Inspector of Police, DCB Vellore Police Station, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 08-06-2026