Periyasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Periyasamy

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Pudukkottai.

(Crime No.0006 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasan For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 0006 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2026 for 1/6

the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 and 120B of IPC, in Crime No.0006 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a business of purchasing gold bars and manufacturing jewellery as per the designs required by customers in his native place. In order to expand his business, the defacto complainant was in need of financial assistance. One Unnikrishnan, a friend of the defacto complainant, informed him that the petitioner owns a finance company and that a loan would be sanctioned after verifying the properties. Subsequently, the defacto complainant approached the petitioner through one Nachiyappan to secure the loan. On 05.02.2024, the sister of Nachiyappan and others inspected the defacto complainant's properties and assured him that they would arrange a loan of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- 2/6

in four instalments. They also demanded a commission of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The defacto complainant then paid Rs. 50,00,000/- and signed several blank cheques and copies of property documents. However, the petitioner neither credited the loan amount nor repaid the Rs. 50,00,000/- as promised. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 and 120B of IPC. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He is in judicial custody from 20.03.2026. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit 3/6

that the offence is grave in nature and the petitioner and other accused persons cheated and deceived the defacto complainant by extracting a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the pretense of sanctioning a loan and the investigation is still pending. He would further submit that the petitioner has 24 previous cases, which are similar in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and considering the grave offence committed by the petitioner and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 24 previous cases, which are similar in nature, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

4/6

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J) 16.04.2026 vsg To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Pudukkottai.

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

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7418 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 6/6