← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/16982/2025granted

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

2025-06-20Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR UMASHANKAR Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur.

Crime No.02/2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime.No.02 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.Sengkodi For Respondent(s):

Mr.L.Baskaran, GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Today, the matter is listed under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that some errors has been crept in the order dated 20.06.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.16982 of 2025. Accordingly, the entire order shall be replaced as follows:

"Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.02 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner : Mr.S.Sengkodi For Respondent:Mr.L.Baskaran The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 177, 420 of IPC in connection with Crime No.02 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as a temporary Typist and he was relieved from duty on

25.03.2025. The petitioner is said to have borrowed personal loan of Rs.3,60,000/ from the UCO Bank. On inspection, the defacto complainant declared that the signature in C&D (Annexure Form) to be signed by CAO, is not her. The petitioner is alleged to have used the stamp of CAO and forged her signature for obtaining loan from the bank. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the requirement of the bank agent, the petitioner had prepared certain documents and obtained personal loan which later turned to be forged and now projected as though the petitioner had forged the signature of CAO and obtained personal loan. He further submitted that the petitioner is a Post Graduate and aspiring to write the competitive exams. Due to his misfortune, following the wrong advise of the agent of the bank and he is in prison from 20.05.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner has now repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.3,60,000/- to the A/c.No.24100610161142 and also produced the letter of the

Bank Manager dated 18.06.2025. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner forged the signature of the Chief Administrative Officer and also used her seal and forged the Bank Manager, UCO Bank, to obtain personal loan . It came to the light only when the CAO informed to the Bank that it was not her signature. The specimen signature of the petitioner also obtained and collected all the relevant documents and the same are with the respondent police at present and the investigation is in progressive stage.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the period of incarceration and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition and the entire loan amount has been repaid by the petitioner and the bank also issued 'no- due' certificate, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Ariyalur and on further conditions that:

[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 three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for further interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

registered under Section 269 of B.N.S."

3. In view of the above, the registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue fresh order copy to the parties. 25-06-2025 Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ariyalur.

2. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Ariyalur.

3. The Sub Jail, Ariyalur.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

jai CRL OP No. 16982 of 25-06-2025