Arul Raj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.15415 of 2025 Arul Raj ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Kanniyakumari Police Station, Kanniyakumari.
(Crime No.1 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sakthi Kumaran For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
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 406, 420, 120(b) of IPC and under Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, in Crime No.1 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that one Shajahan through his friend came to know about the 1st accused company and since he wanted to invest the amount which he was intending to spend for his daughter's 2nd wedding, he invested the said amount in the 1st accused company under Fixed Deposit. In 2022, he approached the said Finance Company and it came to his knowledge that the said company was registered in the year 2016 and continued till date. He invested Rs.10,00,000/- in his name and Rs.5,00,000/- in his wife's name and the said amount was matured and once again he invested the said amount of Rs.5,55,000/- in his wife's name and Rs.11,05,000/- in his name. He also made subsequent investments. Subsequently, the defaco complainant on coming to know that the accused company has defaulted in repayment of the invested amount and the accused Finance Limited was closed, he approached 2/6
the accused No.3 to get back his invested money. He was given Rs.2,50,000/- and he was assured that he will be paid with the remaining amount soon. However, the balance amount of Rs.34,10,000/- is due to be repaid to the defacto complainant and he has prayed to take action against the accused Nos.1 to 9 who are the Directors and the Managers of the said company. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner. 3.This Court already directed the petitioner to file an affidavit stating that the petitioner would deposit the deeds of the property. The petitioner's wife, namely, Indira has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner would deposit the deeds of the petitioner's wife's property.
4.Further, this Court directed the Government Advocate (Crl.side) to ascertain the value of the property. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that as per guideline value, the property would fetch Rs. 26 ,69,161/-
5. 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 3/6
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 District Judge, Special Court, TNPID Court, Madurai, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 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 shall deposit the original sale deed of the property mentioned in the affidavit before the learned District Judge, Special Court, TNPID Court, Madurai, at the time of producing sureties. [c]the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
4/6
[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.
03.11.2025 TMG TO
1. The learned District Judge, Special Court, TNPID Court, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Kanniyakumari Police Station, Kanniyakumari.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15415 of 2025 Date : 03.11.2025 6/6