Durai Ramachandran v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Durai Ramachandran S/o.Arumugam, No.110-1-3/65, Kilakkadu, Mamangam, Salem West Taluk, Salem district.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by:

The Inspector of Police, CCB Salem city, Salem district.

[Cr.No15 of 2026] ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Cr.No.15 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. D.Veerasekharan For Respondent(s):

Mr. S. Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2) and (3) and 340(ii) of B.N.S. in Crime No.15 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant gave an amount of Rs.96 lakhs on various dates from 19.10.2024 to 14.03.2025 to the petitioner for purchasing property situated in Survey No.295/1A, 298/1, 299/2A and 297 to an extent of 76,000 sq. ft. consisting 60 plots at Sivabala Green City, Puduchathiram Village, Namakkal District, and the said property was originally belonged to one Sangeetha. The petitioner made an agreement with the said Sangeetha for sale of plots on 04.10.2024. The defacto complainant requested the petitioner to execute the sale deed as per Sale Agreement. But the petitioner impersonated said Sangeetha and cheated the defacto complainant. In fact, the said Sangeetha is in abroad. The accused did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been remanded to judicial custody on 19.05.2026 for the alleged occurrence that has taken place on 19.10.2024 and he would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that A2 is yet to be secured and the amount cheated by the petitioner is Rs.94 lakhs. The said contention

has also been reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor / defacto complainant. Though the learned Government Advocate objected for grant of bail to the petitioner, he has fairly conceded that the petitioner has no previous cases.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Though there is an allegation of cheating, while looking into the factual position that the occurrence took place on 19.10.2024, by this time, major portion of investigation might have been completed and considering the long incarceration of the petitioner since 19.05.2026 and upon the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions:

7. 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, Salem 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 appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.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 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]:

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30-06-2026 MJS 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, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, CCB Salem city, Salem district.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MJS 30-06-2026