Ravikumar Alias Senthilkumar v. The State Represented By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.22543 of 2025 Ravikumar @ Senthilkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City.

... Respondent (Cr.No.432 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.432 of 2025 on the file respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Dinesh For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner herein, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the alleged offence under Section 140(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 308(5) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.432 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2025, the defacto complainant, Mr.Lukaman Ansari, a cooli by profession, lodged a complaint alleging that during his train journey from Patna to Ernakulam, he was approached by a stranger who introduced himself as a representative of "Kumarasamy Private Limited", a manpower agency. The agency promised him a commission of RS.200/- per labour for arranging workers aged 18-45 years. Believing this, the complainant introduced one Ramdev Pulla, who in turn arranged eight labourers that arrived at Salem Railway Station on 26.07.2025. Thereafter, one Indirajith, an accused, came with two cars and took away the eight labourers. It is alleged that they were kidnapped, assaulted and a demand of Rs.4 lakhs was made, a subsequently, they were released after extorting money from the victims. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person. He further submitted that it was A1 alone who collected the entire amount and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that this petitioner is arrayed as A8 and he acted as a driver of the main accused and assisted them. He further submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. As per the FIR allegations, around eight labourers, all belonging to another State, were given false visiting cards under the pretext of job arrangements. Later, they realized that they had been cheated. Although the investigation is now almost completed, out of the Rs.4 lakhs collected, only Rs.6,500/- has been recovered.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate 3/6

concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that [a] if the petitioner fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, this order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] 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;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on alternative days at 10.00 a.m., for a period of three months;

[d] 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];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR 4/6

can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 18.09.2025 smv To 1.The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City.

2.Judicial Magistrate - II, Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

5/6

smv Crl.O.P.No.22543 of 2025 18.09.2025 6/6