Rvi Ram v. State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.09.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.642 of 2025 1.RVI Ram 2.M.R.Chandra 3.Devi 4.Gunabalaji ... Petitioners` Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni.
... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Jothiraj PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/6
PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.35 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.35 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who invited the defacto complainant to invest in a Bio-Diesel Project, obtained investments from him and purchased the lands in the company's name and in the names of his family members, thereby, cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/-. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and with regard to the dispute, a civil suit is also pending between the parties. He would further submit that the petitioners have appeared before the respondent 2/6
police and have continuously co-operated with them for investigation and also produced all the required documents. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary in this case. Further the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the investigation in this case is going on. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners committed various economic offences in the name of the company and also cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/-. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.
Admittedly, the petitioners and accused persons were running a company prior to 2011. In the course of business transactions, the parties closed the company. The allegation of the defacto complainant is that subsequently, a fabricated resolution was passed. Based on the resolution, the petitioners swindled money.
such allegation at all. There were some rival claim by a third party, which ended in settlement, under which the defacto complainant received certain properties.
7.It appears that a civil suit is pending betweemn the parties and it is purely business transactions and all the relevant documents have already been produced by the petitioners before the respondent police and the same were sent for forensic report. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary 8.Taking into consideration the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute 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 Judicial Magistrate, Theni, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on further conditions that:
[a]the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their 4/6
photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners are 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)AIR SCW 5560].
[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
15.09.2025 cp 5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J cp To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.642 of 2025 Date : 15.09.2025 6/6