Ramesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 10.07.2025 Pronounced on : 29.07.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.6771, 8507, 7819 and 7244 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.6058, 7699, 7682 and 6059 of 2025 Ramesh S/o.Selvaraj ... Petitioner/A3 in S.Suryaprakash S/o.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8507 of 2025 K.Kanisundaram S/o.Kannan ... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7819 of 2025 Manjalnathan ... Petitioner/A2 in S/o.Chinnavedivasan Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7244 of 2025 Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - II Police Station, Trichy.

(Crime No.3 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant in all Petitions 1/9

PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.6771 & 8507 of 2025: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to release the petitioners on bail in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.7819 & 7244 of 2025: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to direct the petitioners to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or their appearance in connection with Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6771 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8507 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7819 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7224 of 2025 For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side) (In All Petitions) For Intervenor : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan (In All Petitions) COMMON ORDER The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.6771 and 8507 of 2025 seek bail for the alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 406, 120(B) and 506(1) of IPC in connection with the case registered in Crime No.3 of 2025 of respondent police. 2/9

2. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.7819 and 7244 of 2025 seek anticipatory bail on apprehension of arrest by respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 406, 120(B) and 506(1) of IPC in connection with the case registered in Crime No3 of 2025 of respondent police.

3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8507 of 2025 and 6771 of 2025 are Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 respectively and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.7244 and 7819 of 2025 are Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 respectively.

4. The brief case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and Accused No.1 have known each other as the defacto complainant is doing supply of Dhal to government institutions. It is alleged that Accused No.1 instigated the defacto complainant to invest the amount in real estate business, and within 15 days, he would get the sale deed executed and further, he would receive 40% profit amount in addition to purchase of land. Believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant paid a total sum of Rs.9,50,48,760/- through bank and liquid cash to the accused and to the bank account of the persons as stated by the accused. After paying money, the sale deed was executed only for Rs.4,18,20,000/- instead of Rs.9,50,48,760/-, and they cheated to pay the balance amount with profit. When the defacto complainant demanded the remaining amount, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences.

3/9

5. Both parties in all petitions argued at length and this Court considered their arguments at the limited scope of bail and anticipatory bail.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8507 of 2025 and 6771 of 2025 have submitted that the petitioners in respective petitions are Accused Nos.1 and 3. He would further submit that the petitioners have not been involved in the alleged offence. In fact, Accused No.3/Ramesh sent a legal notice and lodged a police complaint against the defacto complainant as if the defacto complainant obtained the signature of Accused No.3 in an unfilled stamp paper and cheated to pay the amount as per the deal. Moreover, the defacto complainant already lodged the very same complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Nilagiri and the same was closed on enquiry as there was no evidence. Again, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint containing the same allegations. The petitioners have been arrested.

The police took them on police custody and they were interrogated. The petitioners were granted interim bail by this Court on 14.05.2025 and 17.04.2025, respectively, by considering their incarceration period. The investigation is almost completed. Hence, the petitioners may be granted bail.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.7244 of 2025 and 7819 of 2025 has argued mostly relying on the arguments of the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.8507 and 6771 of 2025. In addition, the petitioners are not land brokers 4/9

and they are government officials. They have been falsely implicated by the defacto complainant in this case in order to grab money as they are government officials. So, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent filed a status report and submitted that the defacto complainant is running cow feed production company and supplying lentils items to government noon meal scheme, in which way he has friendship with Accused No.1/Suryaprakash, who was working as DRO in Land Acquisition proceedings, Chennai. Accused No.1 offered defacto complainant that the property situated at Ooty and other stations came for sale and his friends accused/Accused Nos.2 to 4, arranged a person for the purchase of that land, so asked the defacto complainant to invest the money in real estate business, which would return with 40% profits. Believing the words, the defacto complainant invested Rs.9.

5 crores on various dates in the name of the accused and other persons through bank transactions and liquid cash transactions. The accused got registered sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant only for lesser amount and the accused did not repay the balance amount with 40% profit and thereby cheated him. The investigation is pending at the initial stage and so far, only 10 witnesses have been examined. Moreover, the Accused No.

Crime No.9 of 2024 of the District Crime Branch, Karur and that case is also pending investigation. If the petitioners are granted bail and anticipatory bail, they would tamper with the evidences.

9.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor argued based on the arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). In addition, the learned counsel submitted that the defacto complainant clarified with the seller, who replied that he only received Rs.4,18,20,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed, not Rs.9,17,93,760/-. Hence, the defacto complainant came to know that he was cheated about Rs.5 crores and demanded the accused for repayment, the accused threatened the defacto complainant that they would file complaint before the Income Tax department and other authorities by using their official position in government and also threatened with dire consequences as they have link with Delhi rowdies and also they have good legal consultants at Supreme Court.

He would further submit that the earlier complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, was caused to be closed by the accused using their influence. The intervening petitioner specifically submitted that Accused No.1 is habituated of doing such acts and he is involved in a similar offence in Crime No.9 of 2024 of the District Crime Branch, Karur, his bail plea was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitions may be dismissed.

6/9

10. Heard and perused the available records. It is seen from the records that the defacto complainant and Accused No.1 are known persons. This was not denied. It is alleged that by using sweet words of the accused, the defacto complainant, being a businessman, has been fascinated to make investments of huge amount in the real estate business, by which he would receive 40% profit in addition to the invested amount. It is alleged by the prosecution that the defacto complainant invested Rs.9.5 crores, but a sale deed was executed in his favour only for Rs.4,18,20,000/- as mentioned in the sale deed, not Rs.9,17,93,760/-. The seller stated that he received only Rs.4,18,20,000/- as stated in the sale deed and also gave a statement before the investigating agency. Prima facie, it shows earnings by way of cheating.

Huge money transaction dealt with between the defacto complainant and Accused No.1, as prima facie seen from the complaints by both. However, Accused No.1 involved in the same nature of offence in Crime No.9 of 2024 of DCB, Karur, did not deny by Accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were in judicial custody for more than 45 days. They were taken to police custody and interrogated. Already, this Court granted interim bail to the accused considering their incarceration period and so, the same is made absolute.

11. So far as Accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, they are still absconding and seeking anticipatory bail. They were not interrogated by the respondent police so 7/9

far. Hence, their interrogation by the respondent police is absolutely necessary. Since the amount involved in this alleged nature of cheating and Accused Nos.2 and 4 are government officials, the apprehension of the prosecution and the defacto complainant that the accused would tamper with the evidences could not be brushed aside. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, the anticipatory bail moved by the Accused Nos.2 and 4 is liable to be dismissed.

12. In result, the Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.6771 and 8507 of 2025 are allowed and the interim bail granted to Accused Nos.1 and 3 by this Court on 14.05.2024 and 17.04.2025 made absolute. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 shall abide the conditions imposed in the interim bail until further orders.

13. Insofar as the Petitions filed by the petitioners/A2 & A4 in Crl.O.P(MD) Nos.7244 and 7819 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, at this stage and hence, these petitions are dismissed.

14. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. sd/- 29/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

8/9

VSD TO 1.THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, SRIRANGAM, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DISTRICT.

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH - II POLICE STATION, TRICHY.

5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to P.R.PRITHIVIRAJ Advocate SR.No.8180(I) Dated :30/07/2025 Pre - Delivery Order made in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.6771, 8507, 7819 and 7244 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.6058, 7699, 7682 and 6059 of 2025 Date :29/07/2025 SBN/06.08.2025 9P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 9/9