Megala v. Rajesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN in CRL OP Nos.8679 & 8682 of 2025 Megala ..Petitioner in both Crl.MPs Vs 1.Rajesh 2.Haribhaskar 3.State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police, (Crime No.108 of 2025) 4.Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offence Wing, Salem.

..Respondent(s) in Crl.M.P.No.20488 of 2025 1.Rajesh 2.Sathyabama 3.Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offence Wing, Salem.

4.State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police, (Crime No.108 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) in Crl.M.P.No.20438 of 2025 Prayer in Crl.MP.No.20488 of 2025: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.8679 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025. Prayer in Crl.MP.No.20438 of 2025: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023, to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.8682 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025. Crl.M.P.No.20488 of 2025 For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sunil Kumar R For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.N.Kasi Viswanathan for R2 Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R3 & R4 Crl.M.P.No.20438 of 2025 For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sunil Kumar R For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Sarath Chandran for R1 & R2 Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R3 & R4

ORDER

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, at the time of registration of the complaint, the total amount alleged to have been cheated by the petitioner is Rs.3,40,00,000/-, out of which RS.3 crore was seized. However, subsequently, multiple complaints have been received and as on 23.01.2026, the total amount alleged to have been cheated has increased to Rs.29,55,20,190/- involving 375 victims. It is further submitted that this aspect was not at all considered by the Court while granting bail on 27.03.2025.

2. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, who would contend that the Court, while granting bail, had considered the complaint and the cheated amount alleged by the prosecution as on the date of the grant of bail. Based upon the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court recorded that Rs.3,40,00,000/- was the amount allegedly cheated, of which Rs.3 crore had been recovered. It is, therefore, contended that the question of suppression of facts does not arise, and the Court, while granting bail, had considered all relevant aspects. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order.

3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that he has already filed an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondents 1 and 2 are not

cooperating with the trial and is in violation of the conditions imposed by this Court in the bail order. However, the said application is still pending, due the pendency of another application before this Court for cancellation of bail.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

5. Admittedly, no ground has been raised by the petitioner to show any violation of the bail conditions. However, it is the submission of the petitioner that certain facts were not considered by this Court while granting bail.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts that were germane at that point of time namely, that the amount allegedly cheated was Rs. 3,40,00,000/- and the amount recovered was Rs. 3 crore were duly considered by this Court. Therefore, the question of non-consideration of material facts does not arise in this case. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to cancel the bail. Hence, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

7. As contended by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) regarding the application for cancellation of bail on account of non-compliance with the conditions is concerned, since such application is pending before the

concerned trial Court, Coimbatore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court. 30-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dpa To

1. The Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offence Wing, Salem.

4.The Inspector Of Police,

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dpa in CRL OP Nos.8679 & 8682 of 2025 30-03-2026