Madeshwaran v. The State Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Madeshwaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
Cr.No.202/2026.
..Respondent(s) Manasa [Permitted to intervene vide order dated 12.06.2026 in Crl.MP.No.9134/2026 in Crl.OP.No.14570 of 2026 ..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 Cr.No.202 of 2026 on the file of respondent police.s For Petitioner(s):
Mr.B.Mohan For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) For Intervener(s):
Mr.S.Arivazhagan
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 351(2), 308(2), and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (TNPHW) Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, in Crime No.202 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant assists her husband, Suresh Babu, in running M/s.GK Industries. From the year 2021, Suresh Babu borrowed money over a period of time from the petitioner (A1 - Mahadeswaran), who allegedly runs a chit fund and money-lending business at Hosur. Though the defacto complainant and her husband allegedly borrowed Rs.1.2 Crores and repaid approximately Rs.2.3 Crores inclusive of interest, the petitioner demanded a further sum of Rs.1.07 Crores, refused to provide an account statement, and threatened them. It is further alleged that the petitioner trespassed into their house, abused them, and deployed certain women to wrongfully restrain the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner and his son forcibly took Suresh Babu to the bank and compelled him to transfer a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- from his bank account to the account of M/s.Urban Constructions. Despite receiving substantial amounts, the petitioner allegedly
continued to extort and threaten them. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He further submits that while the defacto complainant's husband borrowed money, they have failed to disclose the exact principal amount advanced on different dates or provide a complete statement of accounts. He points out that without determining the actual principal amount, no conclusion can be reached regarding the alleged charging of exorbitant interest. He adds that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.05.2026 and is fully willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions.
4. The learned counsel for the intervener / defacto complainant strongly opposes the grant of bail, submitting that due to financial distress and the absence of alternate credit sources, her husband borrowed the money. She states that her husband was forcibly taken away by the petitioner, while she was wrongfully restrained and confined in her residence by certain women deployed at the instance of the accused. Highlighting that they are the direct victims of extortion and harassment committed by the petitioner, the learned counsel prays for the rejection of the bail application.
5. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police echoes the opposition and reiterates the case of the prosecution. He submits that extortion is involved and the core issue arises from the financial transactions between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's husband. He further points out that there are 6 previous cases pending against the petitioner and that the petitioner was found in possession of various promissory notes and signed blank cheques obtained from the defacto complainant. He states that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage will adversely affect the ongoing investigation.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
7. Considering the facts and the totality of the circumstances, this Court takes note of the fact that the underlying issue heavily arises out of a money transaction between the parties. Taking into further consideration the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner since 24.05.2026, and despite the objections regarding the previous cases and the stage of the investigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to strict and conditions to safeguard the investigation.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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 No.II, Hosur, 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 the respondent Police twice everyday at 10:30 a.m. and 05:30 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.
12-06-2026 (2/2) 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 No.II, Hosur.
2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
3.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni 12-06-2026 (2/2)