K.J.Rufus Israel Thomas v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.15155 of 2025 K.J. Rufus Israel Thomas ... Petitioner(s) Vs.
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.554 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.S.Lawrence Vimal Raj For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Prabhu PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.554 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 316(2), 336(3), 318(4) of BNSS, in Crime No.554 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner told the defacto complainant that there is a bank job for the defacto complainant's son namely Muthuramanickam promising them Rs.1 lakh/- in salary UCO bank and demanded Rs.12 lakhs/- for the same. The defacto complaint's husband said that they do not have much money. They paid Rs. 9.58 lakhs/- through phone pay from 08.07.2024 to 20.09.2024 and Rs. 3 lakhs/- in cash. In this situation, 05.08.2024, the petitioner gave the appointment order for the position of the Manager in the bank. After that, he also gave a training shift order confirmation on 11.11.2024. At that time, the petitioner took the defacto complainant's son to the 2nd accused Vijay Vinayagamoorthy in Chennai and introduced him as the important person. After that, the above UCO Bank's Zonal Manager/Accused No.2 issued waiting list for the manager registration. When the defacto complaint's son went there the Branch Manager said that it was fake. When we asked the accused about this, the 2nd accused said that he would definitely get 2/7
a job. Thereafter, the defacto complainant's husband died. But the defacto complaint's son has not got the job yet and the accused are threatening them and are not repaying the money. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently objected for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed in the interim anticipatory bail regularly, the interim anticipatory bail already granted 3/7
is made absolute and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Padmanathapuram, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioner 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 petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), to the credit of Crime No.554 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Padmanathapuram.
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.554 of 2025.
order/Judgment.
[c]the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [d]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[e]the petitioner 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.
17.11.2025 TMG 5/7
TO
1. Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Padmanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15155 of 2025 Date : 17.11.2025 7/7