D.Chinnadurai v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pazhavoor
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.OP(MD)No.12081 of 2026 1.D.Chinnadurai 2.Johnson @ Johnson ... Petitioners /vs./ The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Pazhavaoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District, In Crime No.477 of 2025.
...Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S., to modify the condition in para-c "imposed in Cr.M.P.No.18 of 2026, dated 19.01.2026, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in FIR in Crime No.477 of 2025 filed by the Respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondent : Mr.I.Murugesan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
Heard Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan for the petitioners and Mr.I.Murugesan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent. 1/6
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed against the petitioners by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.18 of 2026, dated 19.01.2026, namely, "that the petitioners shall report and sign before the respondent police station daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of one month and also on condition that the petitioners have to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/- (in total) before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor under the head of Cr.No.477 of 2025 of respondent P.S., without prejudice to their defence before the trial court and after the deposit of the amount, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to deposit the same as fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalized Bank and further respondent police is directed to submit the report, deviations if any committed by the petitioners in observing the above condition. On further condition that they shall make available themselves for interrogation as and when required by the investigation Officer";
3. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are that they collected a sum of Rs.80,000/- through GPay by representing that they would make arrangements to secure bail for the husband of the de-facto complainant. Subsequently, it came to light that the petitioners had not taken any steps to arrange bail. On the contrary, bail was arranged by some other persons, and the 2/6
husband of the de-facto complainant was released on bail. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A1 and A2.
4. After considering the allegations and the other aspects of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail subject to the above conditions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had also taken steps to secure bail and had collected the amount towards legal fees. However, another advocate secured bail for the husband of the de-facto complainant even before orders were passed on the bail petition filed by the petitioners herein. Nevertheless, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the above aspects, found that the petitioners had misrepresented the facts and collected a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the de-facto complainant and, therefore, imposed the aforesaid condition.
6. This Court is of the view that the allegations disclose a case of cheating by collecting money from the de-facto complainant on the false representation that the petitioners would arrange bail. The petitioners have also admitted the receipt of the said amount. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the condition directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/- is appropriate. Moreover, the amount has not been directed to be paid to the 3/6
de-facto complainant but only to be deposited to the credit of Crime No.477 of 2025, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the condition imposed on the petitioners is proper. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to modify the condition imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.18 of 2026, dated 19.01.2026.
8. At this juncture, Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, prayed that this Court may grant the petitioners some time to deposit the said amount.
9. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the time granted to comply with the said condition is hereby extended by a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The other conditions imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.No.18 of 2026, dated 19.01.2026, shall remain unaltered. 30.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Nsr 4/6
TO:
1.The Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Pazhavaoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District, In Crime No.477 of 2025..
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
Nsr Order made in Crl.OP.(MD).No.12081 of 2026 Dated:
30.06.2026 6/6