Manjunath v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Manjunath S/o.Daddayallappa, Door No.182, Ambedkar Colony, Pitharakuppe Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, State of Karnataka.
Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, Tirupattur District.
Crime No.156/2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime.No.156/2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. E.Kannadasan For Respondent(s):
Mr. A.Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.06.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 316, 318, 305 of BNS 2023 in Crime No.156 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2025 at about 01.10 p.m. when the defacto complainant went to Indian Bank ATM at Gandhipet Branch and try to take cash from the ATM Machine and found the server is busy, at that time, one person, who was standing near asked his pin number and after receipt of the same, he returned another ATM card stating that there was technical issue, however, he had received three SMS that the cash of Rs.23,500/- was withdrawn. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case as if he committed theft of cash from various persons, but in fact, there is no specific overtact against this petitioner. He would submit that he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and he is no way connected with the said offence. He would submit that there is no role of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 59 days from 10.06.2025. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
2/5
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that originally, the petitioner collected ATM card as well as pin number from the defacto complaiannt and returned a fake ATM card to him and thereafter, he had withdrawn a sum around Rs.23,500/- from the ATM. He would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 and so far, the property was not recovered and he is having three previous cases and also he is an habitual offender. He would also submit that if he is released on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is an habitual offender and by manipulation of ATM card, he withdrawn the amount, so far, the amount was not recovered, by using fake ATM card, he has cheated the customers and so, on considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and the fact that investigation is still pending and at this stage, if he is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
08-09-2025 3/5
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To
1. Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, Tirupattur Dt.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4/5
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rpp CRL OP No. 24356 of 08-09-2025 5/5