Velmurugan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.14267 of 2025 1.Velmurugan 2.Uma Maheswari ... Petitioner(s) Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai City.
(Crime No.42 of 2025) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr.M.Karthick.
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Gokul PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.42 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4(1) and 76(1) of Chit funds Act, 1982, in Crime No.42 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 introduced to one R.Velmurugan and his wife Umadevi, from Yogananda Madatheru, Arapalayam Cross Road, through his brother P.Velmurugan (PRC). As they were close family friends, they strongly encouraged him to participate in a chit fund auction which is organized by them. Furthermore, they insisted that their daughters, V. Priyadarshini and V. Prakashini, also to join the chit fund.
Believing their words, the de-facto complainant began saving gradually and enrolled in a chit fund with a maturity amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in his name and paid Rs.36,000/- over for nine months installments. However, later he learnt that the auctioneers were operating without a valid license and had failed to disburse the auction amounts to any of the participants. Therefore, the defacto complainant discontinued the payments after the 9th installment. Like the de-facto complainant one Annalakshmi, Velmurugan and Deepa also refrained from participating further.
Saravanan, Ravichandran, Dhanalakshmi, Senthur, Muthuraj, Jaya, and many more had not received their dues either. Despite multiple visits to their residence, the accused persons have refused to return the amount. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with 3/7
two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Madurai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only), to the credit of Crime No.42 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in two installments. The petitioners shall pay the 1st installment of Rs.1 Lakh/- at the time of producing surety and the 2nd installment of Rs.1 Lakh/- on or before 31.12.2025.
After receipt of entire amount, the learned Judicial Magistrate, shall deposit the said amount in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and renew them periodically until the final order/Judgment is passed in the case in Crime No.42 of 2025. The learned Judicial Magistrate or Trial Court shall pass orders regarding entitlement of the said amount in its final order/Judgment.
[c]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [d]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either 4/7
during investigation or trial.
[e]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f]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 is 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 of BNS.
7.The petitioners are specifically alleging that one P Velmurugan, is also involved in the present transaction and the said P.Velmurugan's wife's account will hold all the transactions. Considering the same, the respondent police is directed to investigate the said P.Velmurugan and his wife also. The petitioner is also permitted to file a fresh petition regarding P.Velmurugan and his wife to the respondent police.
20.11.2025 TMG 5/7
TO
1. Judicial Magistrate Court No I, Madurai.
2.Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14267 of 2025 Date : 20.11.2025 7/7