Rajendran v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.322 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.322 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabakar For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 235, 336(3), 340(2) and 337 of BNS, in Crime No.322 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 1/10

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, during the selection process conducted for the posts come under the Notification Nos.75 to 102 of 2024 dated 28.04.2024 issued by the Judicial Recruitment Cell, High Court, Madras, with the aid of the other accused, in order to obtain job, produced a fake Certificate of Disabled Ex-servicemen. Based on the complaint given by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, the present case came to be registered.

3. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, as if he had promised A1, who got introduced through one Palani, to secure a Government job and received a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and that attempted to obtain the job by issuing a forged certificate. He further submitted that all the documents have been seized and are in custody of the respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 11.06.2025 and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the forged certificates have been 2/10

seized and that the first accused, who had knowingly given money for the creation of forged certificates for his employment, is still in custody. He also a produced a Status Report before this Court. The scanned copy of the Status Report has been reproduced below :- 3/10

4/10

5/10

6/10

7/10

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 No.I, Krishnagiri, 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., until further orders;

[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 8/10

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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

22.07.2025 ham 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.

9/10

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Dharmapuri.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

22.07.2025 10/10