Rajesh Diwar Soni v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

08.05.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 316(2), 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No.279 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, attempted to pledge imitation jewellery as genuine before the respondent bank with an intention to cheat the bank. At the time of verification, the bank officials found that the jewels were imitation ornaments. Based on the complaint lodged by the bank, a case was registered against the accused, and the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025. Hence the bail application.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no bad antecedents and have been in judicial custody since 08.05.2025. The learned counsel also submitted that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by Page3 of 6 order dated 30.06.2026 and they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution's case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 08.05.2026 and the investigation in this case is still pending. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the records available.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners attempted to pledge imitation jewellery as genuine before the respondent bank. At the time of pledging the jewellery, the bank officials identified it as imitation jewellery and, based on the complaint lodged by the bank, the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2025. Insofar as A1 is concerned, since it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that A1 has already been enlarged on bail, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed as against Petitioner /Accused No.1.

6.1. Insofar as A2 is concerned, considering the fact that A1 has already Page4 of 6 been enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to enlarge the 2nd petitioner/A2 on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Egmore Court and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the 2nd petitioner/A2 shall report before the learned respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for the period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [c] the 2nd petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the 2nd petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the 2nd petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the 2nd petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Page5 of 6 Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

8.This Criminal Original Petition is ordered as against the 2nd petitioner. 06-07-2026 jrs Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To:

1.The Metropolitan Magistrate -II, Egmore.

2.The Inspector of Police, G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.279 of 2026

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison jail II, Puzhal.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17170oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o17170oofo2026 06-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Rajesh Diwar Soni S/o Rajesh Sam, NO.07, Varathaiyar Street, Kandithriu. Chennai. 2. Tamilselvan S/o Chandran, NO.98, 3rd Street Block, K.P.Park, Pulianthope, Chennai. ..Petitioners/ Accused 1 and 2 Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.279 of 2026 ..Respondent/ Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in G5 Secretariat Colony Crime No.279 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners: M/S. P.Krishna Moorthy For Respondents: MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE ) Page2 of 6