Ramamoorthi v. The State Rep. by Its, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC (316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, Act 2023) in Crime No. 430 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that 4th accused impersonated himself as Sub-Collector and promised to offer job to the defacto complainant thereby, he cheated a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that A1 has already been remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally five accused in this case and these petitioners have been arrayed as A2 and A3. The first petitioner is the father of A1 and the second petitioner is the wife of A1. She submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedents. However, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 6

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, from the submissions made by learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Though this is a case of job racketeering, the very conduct of the defacto complainant approaching petitioners to get public employment itself must be looked very seriously. Now, A1 has already been remanded to judicial custody. Considering the factual position that these petitioners are father and wife of A1 and 1st petitioner is a senior citizen and the second petitioner is being a woman and also a government employee, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kallakurichi on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: Page4 of 6

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 28-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr Page5 of 6 To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-II, Kallakurichi.

¶2The Inspector of Police Kallakuruchi Police Station, Kallakuruchi District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o20138oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o20138oofo2026 28-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Ramamoorthi 2. Shobana ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police Kallakuruchi Police Station, Kallakuruchi District. Crime No.430 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the Petitioners on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police in the case pending investigation in Cr.No.430 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Thamaraiselvan R For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)