Periyasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/04/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Periyasamy, S/o. Velu, No. 943,Athikaram, Thenkarai, Thirupathur, Sivagangai District..
... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Pudukottai, (Crime No. 6 of 2026)..
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/9
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2026 for 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 2/9
Nachiyappan and others inspected the defacto complainant's properties and assured him that they would arrange a loan of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- 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 for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the coaccused was released on bail. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
3/9
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.83 of 2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature.
He would further submit that the petitioner has 24 previous cases. 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 by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed and the same was taken on 4/9
file in C.C.No.83 of 2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, and though the petitioner has twenty four previous case, in all case, he was released on bail and the co-accused was released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 20.03.2026, 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 Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukottai District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, 5/9
Pudukottai District, once in a week ie., on Every Monday at 10.30 a.m.,until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which 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 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 6/9
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) 29.04.2026 VSG 7/9
TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Pudukottai.3. The Superintendent, Central.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
P. DHANABAL,J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8485 of 2026 Date : 29/04/2026 9/9