R. Pugalendhi Raja v. The State Rep. By Its Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR R.Pugalendhi Raja .. Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by Inspector of Police Vridhachalam Police Station Crime No.310 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. 310 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Thirugnanam For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 318(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS Act, in connection with Crime No. 310 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had given a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- to the accused on the assurance of securing a permanent job. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence, however, he is suffering incarceration from 24.05.2025. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is his relative one Gnanamoorthy, who promised to secure a Government job to defacto complainant and three others. It is his further contention that petitioner received only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the account of Gnanamoorthy which he is willing to deposit to the credit of crime number. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the main person who promised four job seekers to secure a Government job and collected Rs.1,50,000/- through bank and balance amount in cash. He also submits that Gnanamoorthy was present during enquiry and he confirmed that the petitioner had received Rs.1,50,000/- . Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the 2/6

petitioner.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to his contentions, the petitioner is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of crime number.

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

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. 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, Virudhachalam 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 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to 3/6

the credit of Crime No.310 of 2025 and shall produce the proof of payment before the learned Magistrate concerned at the time of executing the sureties. The learned concerned magistrate shall deposit the same in the interest bearing fixed deposit scheme in any one of the nationalised banks. [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[d] The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [f] 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;

[g] 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 4/6

Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 03.07.2025 nr 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-I, Virudhachalam

2. Inspector of Police Vridhachalam Police Station

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

nr 03.07.2025 6/6