Hajima v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

24.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.261 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that there are totally ten accused in the present case. The petitioner is one among them and is alleged to be an employee of the first accused. According to the prosecution, the first accused owned only four houses and, by repeatedly showing the very same houses to as many as 117 victims as though they were available for sale, dishonestly induced them to part with huge sums of money, thereby causing a wrongful loss to the tune of approximately Rs.8.5 crores. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that, despite being fully aware of the fraudulent activities of the first accused, she actively connived with and abetted the commission of the offence. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.06.2026 and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is his specific submission that the petitioner is only an employee of the first accused, that the overt act attributed to her is very limited in nature, and that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2026 passed in Crl.O.P.No.18608 of 2026. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioner is stated to be only an employee of the first accused, she was fully aware that the first accused possessed only four houses and, despite such knowledge, actively connived with the first accused in inducing as many as 117 victims to part with huge sums of money, thereby abetting the commission of the offence. He further submitted that, so far, no police custody of the petitioner has been sought. However, he fairly submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶5Though serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is a woman, the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the specific and limited overt act attributed to the petitioner, the fact that no police custody of the petitioner has been sought, the fact that the

co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated

16.07.2026 in Crl.O.P.No.18608 of 2026, and also considering that the petitioner is only stated to have abetted the main accused, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their 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 XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and subject to the following conditions: [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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the 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 take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

20.07.2026 skr 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

¶1The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

¶2The Superintendent, Special Women Prison, Puzhal

¶3The Inspector of Police, J-7, Velacherry Police Station, Chennai.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr

20.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Hajima ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, J-7, Velacherry Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.261 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.261 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)