Suganya v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.10.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Suganya ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By,The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai City.

(Crime No.421 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.J.Selvin Rajesh Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.421 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of BNS, in Crime No.421 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused came to the Best Finance Corporation, Kalavasal branch and stated that she pledged her jewels with IIFL, Villupuram worth about of Rs.7,60,000/- and that she has to redeem the same from IIFL and then she would re-mortgage the same with Best Finance Corporation. Hence, the defacto complainant's bank had transferred a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- to the account of A1. Further, the defacto complainant had asked the IIFL to give the gold jewels of A1, for which, they have replied that no amount was transferred to them and asked them to come on the next day. Further, it came to know that the petitioner had issued a fake receipt as if A1 had pledged the jewels in IIFL Finance. Further, the petitioner along with A1 had cheated the defacto complainant's bank to the tune of Rs.7,60,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that A1 had already been granted bail by the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.6789 of 2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court and she is in judicial custody from 26.09.2025. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no previous case pending against the petitioner and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner had produced a fake receipt as if A1 had pledged jewels with IIFL Finance and that only on showing the said receipt, the defacto complainant's bank had transferred the amount to the bank account of A1. Furthermore, the petitioner, along with A1, had cheated the de facto complainant's bank. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

3/6

6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner also the fact A1 was granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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.5, Madurai, and on further conditions that :- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 05.00 p.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. 4/6

[e] 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 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]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(S S Y J) 24.10.2025 msrm To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

3. The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai City.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J.

msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18497 of 2025 Date : 24.10.2025 6/6