Rajeev Gandhi v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.26860 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.18754 of 2025 Rajeev Gandhi ... Petitioner Vs.
The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Adhiyamankottai Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
... Respondent (Cr.No.289 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.289 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, pending investigation. For Petitioner :
Mr.G.M.Ananthakumar For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor :
Mr.Vishnu Manoharan
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.289 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that A1 in this case is the wife 1/4
of the petitioner (A2) herein. A3 and A4 are also relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner joined hands with some other accused by making false promise, they getting money from the defacto complainant for the purpose of developing his land; and once land is developed he would return back the amount to the defacto complainant and thereby cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.47,85, 250/-. Hence, the complaint has been registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not aware about the money transacted by other accused and according to him, he received only Rs.10 lakhs and he has done some development works and that there is no criminality involved in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to deposit money as ordered by this court and also he is ready to cooperate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that originally, the defacto complainant was intending to construct a Sivan Temple and was having some funds and taking note of the money available with the defacto complainant, this petitioner approached him with a promise of developing their land and the defacto complainant paid money and they received a total amount of Rs.47.85 lakhs and subsequently no amount was repaid and no 2/4
development work was happened. Hence, he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and reported that totally there are eight accused in this case and that the petitioner is ranked as A2. He further submitted that only one person was arrested in this case and others were absconded and so far no amount is recovered from them. Hence, he oppose to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that huge amount has been cheated by the petitioner along with other accused and so far no amount has been recovered from them, some accused persons were absconded, granting bail at this point of time, it would lead tampering of the witness and hampering the evidence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 08.10.2025 ssi 3/4
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
ssi To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Adhiyamankottai Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.26860 of 2025 08.10.2025 4/4