Ramsingh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD). No.9149 of 2025 Ramsingh, S/o.Devaraj Raja ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by, the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.339 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/5

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.339 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.339 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant was the former Principal of Raju's College, Rajapalayam, and is also the President of the Parents Teachers Association functioning at Raju's College. One S.K. Baskaran and M. Visnushanker, who are Assistant Professors, serve as the Secretary and Treasurer of the Parents Teachers Association, respectively. A separate bank account for the Association is maintained at Bank of Baroda, Rajapalayam. A sum of Rs.500/- is collected from each student every year and deposited into the account of the Parents Teachers Association. The petitioner was working as an Office Assistant in the Association and was entrusted with depositing and withdrawing amounts from the bank account. On 09.02.2024, the petitioner went to the bank and did not return. It was later revealed that he had manipulated the bank accounts and withdrawn a sum of Rs.16,30,000/-, of which he subsequently redeposited Rs.3,95,000/-. Thus, he misappropriated a total sum of Rs.12,35,000/-. Hence, a case has been registered. 2/5

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was merely an Office Assistant in the said Association and could not have withdrawn any amount on his own without the knowledge of the office bearers. The authorized signatory alone would issue a duly signed and filled cheque to the petitioner for withdrawal of money. He further submitted that, in February 2024, the de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint before the respondent police, in response to which the petitioner appeared and cooperated with the enquiry, and the complaint was closed as false by the police. Recording the same, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8655 of 2024 was also closed on 18.07.2024.

Thereafter, suppressing all the facts, the de-facto complainant filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and obtained a direction to register the FIR. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the money misappropriated by the accused was public money, and if it is not recovered from the accused, the reputation of the college will be tarnished. Hence, he strongly 3/5

opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused in this case. Pursuant to the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, the present FIR came to be registered. He further submitted that the petitioner forged the de-facto complainant's signature on the cheque and swindled the amount. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and also taking note of the fact that out of Rs.16,30,000/-, only a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- has been repaid by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 14/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

4/5

mkn TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10064 of 2025 Date :14/07/2025 SBN/14.08.2025 5P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5