Senthilkumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/06/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI Senthilkumar, S/o. Late. Chellakani .. Petitioner/A3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.10 of 2024) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.Thanga Aravindh.B, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471, 294(b) 1/6

and 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused had forged and fabricated a Board resolution as if it was passed by the Company called as M/s.IVR Prime Developers. Based on the same, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of accused Nos.2 to 5 and the property belonging to the Company was dealt with. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 5 sold the property in favour of the de-facto complainant. The defacto complainant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.85,87,000/- and this amount was also encashed by the accused persons. When the de-facto complainant was insisting for handing over of the original documents, it was not handed over and later, it came to light that the original documents are only with the Company, who is the original owner of the property. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has no role in the fraudulent activities committed by the 1st accused. He would further submit that A1 and A5 were arrested and subsequently released on bail by this Court, and the First Information Report has been quashed as against A6 and A7. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the 2/6

petitioner is in custody from 22.05.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner received the property from the 1st accused and subsequently executed the sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant's wife. This is the only role attributed to the petitioner. He would further submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the co-accused was arrested and subsequently released on bail by this Court, and that the F.I.R. has been quashed as against A6 and A7, and that the petitioner has suffered incarceration from 22.05.2025, and that there are no previous cases against the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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, Virudhunagar District 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.

3/6

[b] The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contact number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District. If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar District;

[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 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]. 4/6

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

sd/- 20/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

mkn TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.

3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, VIRUDHUNAGAR.

4. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.M.RAJA RAVI VARMA, Advocate ( SR-6620[I] dated 20/06/2025 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10038 of 2025 Date :20/06/2025 MK/20.06.2025 6P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6