Arunsurya v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Arunsurya ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State rep by Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

(Crime No.99 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.99 of 2025 on the file the respondent Police. For petitioner : Mr.S.Veerapathran For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.04.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 319(2), 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.99 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's father introduced the petitioner as a Civil Judge of Madras High Court to the de-facto complainant's father and promised to secure a job at Metro for the de-facto complainant's son, for which, the de-facto complainant and his friend one Vijay paid an amount of Rs.23,21,000/- through Gpay. But the petitioner neither secured any job nor returned the money. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father and de-facto complainant's father are friends. This has been projected as though the petitioner is a Civil Judge and he had shown 2/5

some name board and identity card and believing the same, the de-facto complainant made about Rs.1,25,000/- on 02.06.2024 through Gpay and the de-facto complainant's friend Vijay had paid an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- again through Gpay. The petitioner is said to have received a total amount of Rs.23,21,000/-. The petitioner is not aware about the Gpay payment and handling of his account. The petitioner never handled this account, somebody had misused the petitioner's name and falsely implicated the petitioner. Hence, prayed for granting bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the petitioner's contention and submitted that it is a job racketing case. The petitioner claiming himself to be a Civil Judge in Madras High Court and promised to get job in the Metro to the de-facto complainant and other and collected a sum of Rs.23,21,000/-. But the petitioner neither secured any job nor returned the money. On the other hand threatened and abused the de-facto complainant and others as he is the Civil Judge in Madras High Court. Now, 3/5

the petitioner has been arrested, investigation is in progress and some more complaints are being received.

5.Considering the submissions made on either side and the seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is dismissed.

02.07.2025 rsi To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vishnukanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi 02.07.2025 5/5