M.Chandrasekar @ Chandru v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR M.Chandrasekar @ Chandru ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Ayyanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.24 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.24 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.R.Thangavel For Intervener :

Mr.K.Udayaselvi For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.08.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 316(2) of BNS, 2023, [corresponding Sections 420, 406 of IPC] in Crime No.24 of 1/6

2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with coaccused, A1, who is none other than petitioner's wife induced the de facto complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.18 lakhs on the promise of getting a job in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, the de facto complainant deposited the said amount but failed to get employment. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's wife, A1 was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2716 of 2025 dated 17.02.2025, and this petitioner has been in custody since 06.08.2025. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the intervener/de facto complainant submitted that after much difficulty, she was able to obtain a direction for registration of the FIR. Only thereafter, the petitioner was arrested, and no recovery has been made from him. Hence, she opposed the grant of bail.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for 2/6

the respondent police opposed the grant of bail, reiterating the prosecution case. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending.

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

7. Considering the fact that this is a case of job racketing, wherein the petitioner and his wife, A2 are alleged to have cheated the de facto complainant under the pretext of getting employment in the TNEB and misappropriated a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- and also taking into account the period of incarceration, 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 V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, 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 3/6

identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] 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;

[f] 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];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 24.09.2025 cda 4/6

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 V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ayyanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Central Prison, Puzhal.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda 5/6

24.09.2025 6/6