Murugesan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

EFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13.06.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Murugesan, S/o.Chokkan

...Petitioner / Accused No.2

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Pudukkottai, (Crime No.1 of 2022) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Muthu Krishnan, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023. 1/6

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2025 for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 473 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working as a District Administrative Officer at the District Court, Pudukottai. As per the direction of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, the present complaint came to be lodged with the allegation that in the year 2016, during the Annual Audit conducted by the then Sheristadar, and the Central Nazar, it was found that fake stamp papers had been used in 75 cases. As a result, a loss was incurred to the Government, and the total loss was assessed to be Rs.27,66,500/-. Consequently, the present complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant. Initially, an FIR was registered by the District Crime Branch, Pudukottai, in Crime No.19 of 2020, and the case was later transferred to the file of the respondent police, where it was taken on file in Crime No.1 of2022. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He 2/6

would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is only a stamp vendor. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 09.04.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the accused persons had created 800 fake stamp papers and illegally sold them to advocates and various courts. He would further submit that the petitioner had filed bail petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 21.05.2025. He would further submit that all the alleged fake stamp papers have been recovered, and all the accused persons have been investigated. He, however, would submit that, at this stage, if bail is granted to the petitioner, he will abscond and tamper with the evidence. He, therefore, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration and also the fact that the alleged properties have already been recovered, this Court is of the considered view that further custody of the petitioner is not at all necessary. Hence, this court is inclined to grant 3/6

bail to the petitioner, however, subject to the following conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai. If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai.

[c] the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

[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.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with 4/6

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 of BNS, 2023.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.

sd/- 13/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / 13/06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

pal TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai.

2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,

3. The Officer-in-Charge, District Prison, Pudukkottai.

5/6

4. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Pudukkottai,

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

+1 CC to M/s.T.MUTHUKRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-6288[I] dated 13/06/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9259 of 2025 Date :13/06/2025 MK/13.06.2025 6P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6