Pandiaraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
1. PANDIARAJ
2. DEEPA
3. C VELMURUGAN
4. C TAMILARASI Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Inspector of Police Bodinaickanur Rural Police Station Theni District.
Cr.No.552 of 2025.
Respondent(s) [Crime number amended vide order of this Court dated 10.12.2025] For Petitioner(s):
Mr.J. Lawrance For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (crl. Side) Prayer: C-24AB.For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.Not known of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER
The petitioners/Accused rank not known, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 1/5
420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC (corresponding Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 340(2) and 351(2) of BNS) [amended vide order of this Court dated 10.12.2025] in Crime No. 552 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that it is a case of job racketeering. The accused persons received a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the defacto complainant on the assurance of securing employment, but failed to do so. Hence, the case has been registered.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they 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 police submitted that the 3rd petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner and the 4th petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. There is no specific overt act attributed to them. He further submitted that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were involved in the job racketeering. 2/5
5. Considering the fact that there is no specific overt act against A-3 & A-4 and hence this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to A-3 & A-4 alone with certain conditions. As far as the 1st and 2nd petitioner is concerned this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
6. Accordingly, A-3 & A-4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on further conditions that:
[a] A-3 & A-4 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]A-3 & A-4 shall report before the respondent police as on when required for interrogation.
[c] A-3 & A-4 shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d]A-3 & A-4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. 3/5
[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 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].
[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
7. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that a job racketeering has occurred within the Court premises itself, which cannot be allowed to go unchecked. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent police to conduct a comprehensive investigation and submit a report before this Court.
8. Post the matter on 07.01.2026, for filing report. 10-12-2025 [2/2] KSA 4/5
To 1.The Inspector of Police Bodinaickanur Rural Police Station Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/5