← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/18191/2025granted

I.P. Yesudoss v. The State Represented By

2025-06-24Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR I.P.Yesudoss ... Petitioner

Versus

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 83.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, pending investigation of Crime No.7 of 2025 on the file of Respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Gunasekaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor *****

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, Page No.1 of 6

120(B) of IPC and Section 21(1), 21(2), 21(3) and 23 of the Banning of unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, in connection with Crime No.7 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Trustee of Aphro Trust, who was doing some social work helping the Women Self Help Group. There was some understanding among the trustees and the Trust become dis-functional. Due to which, now, the petitioner was arrested on the complaint of the defacto complainant alleging that she had been cheated to the tune of Rs.57,99,633/-. The petitioner's properties to the tune of Rs.12 crores have been attached vide G.O.(Ms).No.132, dated 09.02.2016. Apart from the above case, against the petitioner, eight cases have been registered, in which, six cases in the year 2012, one case in the year 2013 and another case in the year 2016. The present case has been registered in the year 2025. The respondent police are registering the case on piece-meal with the allegations have similar and already known to the respondent. They are doing it deliberately just to ensure that the petitioner is somehow confined in prison for one reason or other. As regards this case, the petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2025.

Page No.2 of 6

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is the Founder and Managing Trustee of Aphro Trust, which had cheated the general public primarily the downtrodden people and the Women Self Help Group. The Government has attached the petitioner's properties in the year 2016. Against the petitioner, there have been four cases, in one case, he has been convicted, in two cases, trial is pending and other cases are under investigation. For similar complaint, the petitioner was earlier arrested and he had been prosecuted. The present case has been raised recently.

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

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the fact that already the properties of the petitioner have been attached, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6. 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 Page No.3 of 6

only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai 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 two 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 Page No.4 of 6

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. 24.06.2025 sp To 1.The Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 83.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.5 of 6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

sp 24.06.2025 Page No.6 of 6