Purusothaman v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Purusothaman

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.

(Crime No.39 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chandrabose For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : Mr.P.Muthukumar PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 39 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 1/8

19.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 39 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a contractor and in order to get Government contract, she gave a sum of Rs.52,50,000/- to the petitioner, due to which they issued fake order to the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

2/8

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor represented the defacto complainant and would submit that the defacto complainant is going to file intervene petition. He also objected to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner cheated a sum of Rs.52,50,000/-. Further, the petitioner neither repaid the said amount nor awarded the contract to the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant bail.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has four previous cases, which are similar in nature. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

3/8

6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that there was a dispute in respect of the awarding contract and the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2024, however the date of FIR is on 06.08.2025 and hence, there is a delay in filing FIR and considering the fact that though the petitioner has four previous cases, in all cases the bail was granted and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 19.02.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of 4/8

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-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 offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the 5/8

Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[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 BNS.

(P D B J) 17.04.2026 vsg 6/8

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7172 of 2026 Date : 17.04.2026 8/8