Nagaraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Puliyarai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 12786 of 2026 1.Nagaraj 2.Ashok @ Ashok Babu
...Petitioners
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.242 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Ramasubramanian Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Ms.S.Madhumitha PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 242 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318, 1/7
61(2)(b) and 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.242 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners while working in the diesel filling station, they inducted the defacto complainant to avail the scheme floated by the Reliance Mobility Limited and as per the scheme, the petitioners have to operate the transaction through an app called Trans-connect, thereby, he will be entitled to receive benefits including the rewards. Accordingly, the defacto complainant was added in the very same scheme and this app was operated even by manually. Accordingly, taking advantage of the said position, the petitioners are all having access to the defacto complainant's accounts, they made transactions for huge value of the diesel in the name of the defacto complainant and misappropriated Rs.30,67,684/- without passing the benefit to the defacto complainant. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know about the alleged activities and enquired the same with the petitioners, they threatened him. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would 2/7
further submit that the main accused is A1. The allegation against the petitioners is that they are supporting the main accused A1, who was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12400 of 2026 and he would further submit that the petitioners are in custody from 10.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioners have no previous case. After the arrest of A2 48 grams of gold and 2 Cars were recovered. Investigation is still pending. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs. If they were released on bail, they will tamper the evidence. Hence, she opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3/7
7. I have gone through the FIR and connected materials including the statement of the accused. Though it is stated that all the accused have colluded and collected huge amounts, it is also stated that the properties worth about Rs. 12 Lakhs have been recovered by the respondent. Apart from that A1 also alleged to have been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioners have no previous case and also considering the period of incarceration and I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[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 4/7
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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
(K R S J) 02.07.2026 TM To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi.
2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.242 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Tenkasi.
5/7
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12786 of 2026 Date : 02.07.2026 7/7