Arockiaraj v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 465, 468 & 506(i) of IPC in Cr. No.3 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein along with other accused have deceived the defacto complainant and other victims by representing that foreign money was available in RBI and that they would yield huge profits if they could take it out of RBI by investing their money. Being the same, the defacto complainant and other victims parted away with their money. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and remanded to judicial custody on

05.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 468, 506(i) r/w 34 of IPC alleging that during 2019 various amounts were paid by the defacto complainant and his wife to one A.Josepine Reena @ Renna jeyaraj and her husband on the promise of receiving 10% monthly profit. The allegations primarily relate to finance transactions between the defacto complainant, his wife and A.Josephine Reena @ Reena Jeyaraj. The petitioner states that he never committed any offence as alleged by the respondent and the above case has been foisted against him and prior to the date of registration of FIR, the petitioner have been allegedly detained and later foisted this false case against him, apart from that, he has not committed any offence, that he is in judicial custody from 05.11.2025 and he has no any previous case pending against him and hence he prayed to grant bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that this petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant under the guise of yielding huge profits by investing money and investigation is at initial stage. Hence he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor has reiterated the arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State.

¶6Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offences and the alleged date of occurrence took place in the year 2018 but, the complaint was lodged in the year 2025 and there is a money transaction between the parties and that no previous case is pending against this petitioner and also considering the incarceration period of this petitioner from

05.11.2025, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute 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.III, Vellore and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at

10.00 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 26-12-2025 kkn/smv Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes 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 Inspector of Police CBCID Police Station, Vellore, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.

2.The Central Prison, Vellore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL J. KKN/SMV CRL OP No. 35724 of 2025

26-12-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Arockiaraj Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. B6 The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Vellore, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu (Crime no 3 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Baalaji For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)