Hiran @ Joseph Jo v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26/03/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Hiran @ Joseph Jo, S/o.John, ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, CCB, Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.45 of 2025).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Balasubramani P., For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 45 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 49, 61(2)(a) of BNS (420, 109, 120(b) of IPC), in Crime No.45 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused obtained Rs.8.50 Crore from the defacto complainant on various dates as a workers of the Christian Davies Antique, Bangalore and forged DRDO Certificate and cheated the defacto complainant by assuring supplying Iridum. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He further submitted that this Court has granted bail to the co-accused and based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. 2/7
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police the petitioner along with the other accused obtained Rs.8.50 Crore from the defacto complainant on various dates as a workers of the Christian Davies Antique, Bangalore and forged DRDO Certificate and cheated the defacto complainant by assuring supplying Iridum. He further submitted that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also submitted that a huge amount of money was also paid directly to A3. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused obtained Rs.8.50 Crore from the defacto complainant on various dates and cheated the defacto complainant by assuring supplying Iridum. Hence, he vehemently, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature 3/7
of offences charged against the petitioner and also considering the facts that co-accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail and based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner was arrayed as accused and even according to the prosecution, a huge amount of money was also paid directly to A3, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 No.I, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. 4/7
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions 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)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 26.03.2026 tta TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2.Inspector of Police, CCB, Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/7
6/7
P. DHANABAL,J tta
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5474 of 2026 Date : 26/03/2026 7/7