Ramya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10547 of 2026 1.Ramya 2.Sreekala 3.Abish ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.3 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dhinesh Kumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Rama Samy PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2) and 318(4) of 1/6

BNS, in Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons approached the defacto complainant and induced her to invest money in order to get huge amount of returns. Believing their words, the defacto complainant send a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- through her bank accounts to the accused persons. Threatened, they did not give any money as profit or principal. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. Originally the defacto complainant borrowed money from the petitioners. She executed pronote to that effect. But, she did not repay the same. Hence, the petitioners have filed two suits before the civil court. As a counter blast to the same, the present complaint has been lodged by her. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence is grave in nature. The petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. The amount involved 2/6

is huge. The petitioners has no previous case. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have no previous case.

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, and nature of allegations against the petitioners, considering that there is business transaction between the parties, there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders:

3/6

[c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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) 10.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai. 4/6

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.3 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Nagercoil. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10547 of 2026 Date : 10.06.2026 6/6