Arunpandiyan v. State Rep By The Station House Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.31415 of 2025 Arunpandiyan ... Petitioner Vs.
The State Rep by :
Station House Officer, Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.
... Respondent (Cr.No.174 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Cr.No.174 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Laksmipathy 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 13.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 111(4), 303(2), 316(2), 1/7
316(5), 318(4), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS r/w 43, 43A, 66(C), 66(D) of IT Act in Crime No.716 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while investigating a petition in CSR.No.944 of 2025, dated 11.09.2025, a statement was recorded from one Ashok Kumar, revealing several facts related to the misuse of accounts of various persons involved in on-line trading. 20 individuals were named for their involvement in this on-line scam, and diversion funds from persons dealing with on-line trading without their knowledge. A separate complaint was registered, and the investigation has proceeded. So far, A3 to A5 have been arrested and the investigation has revealed that all the petitioners were involved in transferring funds from one account to another for the purpose of siphoning off money from various investors, amounting to Rs.2.49 crores.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the co-accused was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 in Crl.OP.Nos.28648, 28228 and 27818 of 2025, the petitioner has been custody since 13.09.2025 and is willing to 2/7
abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and reported that Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reported that the investigation in this case is pending and so far, they have identified 7 persons' accounts and recovered sum of Rs.49 lakhs. He further submitted that various bank accounts have been utilized for transferring funds from one Zerodha fake online trading account. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking all factors into consideration, some of the co-accused were already enlarged on bail and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the 3/7
learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti 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 identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m 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 4/7
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. 18.11.2025 Vv 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.
5/7
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti
2. The Station House Officer, Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.
3. The Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.31415 of 2025 18.11.2025 7/7