Manjunath v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR AND CRL MP NOs.18051 & 18927 of 2025 CRL OP No.25041 of 2025:
Manjunath Petitioner/Accused No.7 in CRL OP No.25041 of Vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police Adiyamankotta Police Station, Dharmapuri.
(Crime No.289/2025) Respondent in CRL OP No.25041 of 2025 CRL OP No. 25236 of 2025:
1. Vinodha 2.Ramaka 3.Arathi Petitioners /Accused Nos.1, 3 & 4 in CRL OP No.25236 of 2025 Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Adiyamankottai Police Station, Dharmapuri. Crime No.289/2025 Respondent(s) in Crl.OP No.25236 of
Common Prayer: These Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.289 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
For Intervenor:
Mr.M.Selvam M/s.Darsini Priya G.P.
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.289 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused colluded and received a sum of Rs.47,85,250/- from the defacto complainant, purportedly for land development purposes. The defacto complainant transferred the said amount to the bank accounts associated with the accused persons relying on their representations. However, the petitioners and other accused subsequently failed to refund the money and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire transaction in question occurred between A2 and the defacto complainant. The petitioners being the relatives of A2 and their account numbers utilized by A2 without their direct involvement. The contention of the petitioners is that they did not receive any monetary benefits from the defacto complainant. Based on the circumstances the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent submitted that a substantial amount was transferred to the account of A3, whereas only a minor amount was transferred to the accounts of A4 and A7. According to him, A1 received Rs.2,50,000/- and A3 received Rs.29,00,000/-. It is also stated that, except for Rs.73,010/-, no money has been recovered so far. Hence, I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail to the 1 st petitioner, Vinodha (A1), and the 2 nd petitioner, Ramaka (A3), in Crl.OP.No.25236 of 2025 would hamper the investigation. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the 1 st petitioner, Vinodha (A1) and 2 nd petitioner, Ramaka (A3), in Crl.OP.No.25236 of 2025. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as to the 1 st petitioner, Vinodha (A1) and the 2 nd petitioner, Ramaka (A3) in Crl.OP No.25236 of 2025.
5. As far as the 3 rd petitioner, Arathi (A4), in Crl.OP No.25236 of 2025, and the petitioner, Manjunath (A7), in Crl OP No.25041 of 2025, are concerned, since the allegations against these petitioners are minor in nature, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 3 rd petitioner, Arathi (A4) in Crl.OP No.25236 of 2025, and the petitioner, Manjunath (A7) in Crl OP No.25041 of 2025, subject to certain conditions.
6.
Accordingly, the 3 rd petitioner, Arathi (A4) in Crl.OP.No.25236 of 2025 and the petitioner, Manjunath (A7) in Crl Op No.25041 of 2025 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri
on condition that the Arathi/A4 and Manjunath/A7 shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the Arathi/A4 and Manjunath/A7 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am, for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
(c) the Arathi/A4 and Manjunath/A7 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the Arathi/A4 and Manjunath/A7 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the Arathi/A4 and Manjunath/A7 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the Arathi/A4 and
Manjunath/A7 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) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
10-10-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
CRL OP No. 25041 of 2025 To 1.The State Represented by the Inspector of Police Adiyamankotta Police Station, Dharmapuri. (Crime No.289/2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3.The Judicial Magistrate-II Dharmapuri.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
gbi CRL OP No. 25041 of AND CRL OP NO.
25236 OF 2025,CRL MP NO. 18051 OF 2025,CRL MP NO. 18927 OF 2025 10-10-2025