Ajmal Abudhageer v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9912 of 2026 Ajmal Abudhageer

...Petitioner

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

(Crime No.4 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathi Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 4 of 2026 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 13.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(B), 1/7

61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 106 and 107 of BNS, in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 Ahmed Meeran had inning an office in the name of "Mahathi Hail and Umrah Service" at Pallapatti, since the year 2025 for arranging Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages. The said office was allegedly operated along with A2 Ajmal Abuthahir who is the petitioner herein, A3 Suhail and A4 Marjan. It is alleged that the accused made attractive advertisements assuring pilgrims that all arrangements for the holy journey would be made and that the first 300 persons would be given concessional rates of Rs.3,37,500/- per person. Believing the said representation, the de facto complainant enrolled himself and three members of his family for the Umrah pilgrimage and paid a total sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- in instalments through bank transfer, cash deposit and UPI between 04.11.2025 and 23.12.2025.

It is further alleged that several other persons from Karur and other districts also paid amounts on the same promise and, in all, about 127 persons are stated to have paid a total sum of Rs.4,28,62,500/- to the accused. Subsequently, when the promised pilgrimage arrangements were not made, the defacto complainant and other affected persons approached the accused on 12.04.

the money. At that time, the accused allegedly abused them in filthy language, threatened them with dire consequences and refused to return the money. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she is in no way connected with this present case. She was falsely implicated in this case. The entire allegation is against A1. He was also granted bail. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner and others have cheated a sum of Rs.10 crores from the public in the name of Hajj. The defacto complainant also paid a sum of Rs.3,37,000/-. Thereafter, they have not take any steps for the Hajj. Already the petitioner also approached the Court to look out notice for other accuses. The same was allowed. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The investigation is at initial stage. The prime accused is A1 and the other accused are his 3/7

employees. Except this petitioner all other accused were granted anticipatory bail. He strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, according to the prosecution this petitioner is only employee under A1, A1 is the prime accused, already anticipatory bail was granted to him and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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.I, Karur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for interrogation:

4/7

[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 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) 09.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.

5/7

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur District. (Crime No.4 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Karur.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9912 of 2026 Date : 09.06.2026 7/7