Pardeep v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01/07/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI Pardeep, M/25 years, S/o.Pawan kumar

...Petitioner/ Accused No.2

Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Madurai City.

(Crime No.32 of 2024) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.32 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 66 1/5

(D) of IT Act, in Crime No.32 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail,

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is an advocate by profession and he registered about his details in Tamil Matrimonial for his marriage at Simmakkal Branch. Further, one Saranya called the defacto complainant over phone from the mobile No.447488488287 and told that she is willing to marry him. Thereafter, the said Saranya induced the defacto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to get job for the defacto complainant's brother in England. Believing the words of the said Saranya/A1, the defacto complainant deposited a sum of Rs15 lakhs to the account of A1/Mamtha Rani on various dates, as instructed by Saranya. After receiving the amount, the said Saranya blocked the defacto complainant's phone calls, Further, the defacto complainant came to know that he was cheated by them. Hence, the complaint upon investigation, it reveals that no such person in the name of Saranya. The defacto complainant deposited the entire amount in the bank account of A1. Thereafter, A1 to A3 shared the amount and this petitioner is the second husband of A1. Hence, the complaint

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and temporarily working at Hyderabad. He would further submit that the 2/5

petitioner is a friend of A1, he was falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 04.05.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the defacto complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakshs to the account of A1 on three occasions. He would further submit that there are three accused persons involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A2. He would further submit that the petitioner is native of Delhi, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may be abscond. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed. However, he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed and taking into consideration of the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two local sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, 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. 3/5

[b] The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. (c)If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. [d] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[g] 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].

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

sd/- 01/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / 01/07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

4/5

msrm TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.M.DINESH HARI SUDARSAN, Advocate ( SR-7001[I] dated 01/07/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11064 of 2025 Date :01/07/2025 NBF/01.07.2025 5P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5