Kalki Rajasekar @ Rajasekar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29995 of 2025 Kalki Rajasekar @ Rajasekar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Perambalur.

... Respondent (Cr.No.3 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatraman For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner, apprehending arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC r/w 3 and 5 of Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 in Cr.No.3 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant namely one Mutharasan is an agriculturist who gave the complaint before the respondent police alleged that one Aadhimoolam/A2 is a BJP District Level Officer in Perambalur in the year or 2013 and the defacto complainant is a member in the BJP Party and A2 was dishonestly induced and false promise made to the defacto complainant if Rs.1,00,000/- is invested to the trust and they have returned back Rs.1 Crore within 3 or 4 months and thereby the defacto complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- to A2 on 03.03.2013 in front of Pachaiamman Temple, Keelapuliyur and then the defacto complainant demanded money to A2 and it was replied that the entire money was given 2/6

to A1. It is further alleged that A1 who is the kingpin of the entire scam in the name and style of Savarimuthu Aruldoss Memorial Trust misused the RBI Emblems and names for the purpose of cheating the several crores of money from the common innocents, victims including the defacto complainants based on the conspiracy between A1 to A8 , which leading to the case of registration against the petitioner. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that totally there are eight accused involved in this case. The payments were made in the year 2014 to A1. Though it is stated that the petitioner is also involved in the offence, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same was handed over to A1 and the petitioner has not benefited anything from the transaction. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the 3/6

petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A8 in this case and he has contacted the defacto complainant and in the presence of A1,Rs.2,00,000/- was collected at the party offence and handed over the same to A1. Both of them have swindled money and the total amount involved in this case is Rs.72,00,000/- and five victims were cheated by them. He further submitted that the petitioner is having two previous cases, out of which one is a cheating case. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the overt act attributed against the petitioner is that he has collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and handed over the same to A1 at his party Office. Apart form that there are no other allegations against the petitioner. Though two previous cases cited, I 4/6

am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions :

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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, 5/6

2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

20.11.2025 Vv To

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, 6/6

Perambalur.

2. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Perambalur.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.29995 of 2025 7/6

20.11.2025 8/6