Karthikeyan vs State Of Tamil Nadu

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.01.2026, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Cr.No.114 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he joining hands with A1 and other accused, involved in collecting the various bank credentials and other documents of 22 victims. They have started the new bank accounts in the name of the victims and operate the same and further without knowledge of the victims and obtained loans in their names, by using various phone numbers and collected total sum of Rs.2.94crores. Subsequently, they siphoned of the same, which led to the registration of the case. Based on the same, the petitioner was arrested. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an employee under A1 in this case and the majority of the allegations are against A1. Though the petitioner herein has collected some commission for his employment, he has done the same only on the instructions of A1. He has not directly benefitted from any of the transactions. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.01.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner/A2 had intimidated the victims continuously and actively participated in the offence. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner/A2 is also actively assisted A1 and they have used 22 victims’ documents and other connected materials for the purpose of opening the bank accounts and after creating the cibil score, availed the loan. Subsequently, the accused persons have siphoned of the same, thereby cheated the victims as well as the banks. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. Further, the learned Government Advocate has produced the copy of the statement recorded from A1 as well as the petitioner herein.

I have also gone through the statements recorded from A1 and other connected materials including the FIR, which revealed that the petitioner has cooperated with A1. Though the petitioner claims to be an employee of A1, he has actively participated in creating and other fabricating documents in the name of the victims for the purpose of obtaining the loans in the name of the victims, without their knowledge, money was utilized by the accused persons. However, the statement of A1 revealed that the petitioner has not benefited from the money collected and the same is used by A1 and his family members. Though the allegation that the petitioner’s bank account also utilized for transferring of money and siphoning of, those money have been again used by A1 in this case.

In view of the above, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;

[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.