Antony Vimal Raj vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 and Sections 21, 22, 25, 27 of BUDS Act, 2019, in Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joining hands with the other accused, collected a total sum of Rs.61 crores from 3354 depositors with a promise of providing huge returns. However, the accused failed to honor their promise and did not return the amounts collected, and thereby cheated the depositors. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are about 20 accused and this petitioner was arrayed as A14 and that he has been under incarceration since 03.02.2026. He would further submit that the similarly placed co-accused were enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.32483 of 2025 on 17.12.2025 and Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2026 on 18.03.2026. Hence, he seeks bail.

At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that this petitioner along with the other accused canvassed from innocent public in number 3354 and cheated to the tune of Rs.61 crores. However, he has not seriously disputed about the enlargement of some of the co-accused on bail.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

While looking into the factual position, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 03.02.2026. The very submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an employee and to substantiate the said submission, he has submitted the petitioner’s bank statement, where monthly wise he has been credited salary. However, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is the close friend of the main accused/A4. The fact remains that the petitioner is under incarceration since 03.02.2026 and some of the co-accused were released on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.32483 of 2025 on 17.12.2025 and Crl.O.P.No.5971 of 2026 on 18.03.2026. The defense put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an employee. Hence, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that he has been under incarceration since 03.02.2026 and some of the co-accused were released on bail, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 TNPID Court, Chennai, 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 at 10.30 a.m. daily for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[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 petitioners 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.