Murali Mohan P.K @ Mohamed Meeran vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.01.2026 for alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime Nos. 406 and 410 of 2025 respectively on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner allegedly introduced himself as an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court of India. It is alleged that, using this persona, he promised to assist the defacto complainants in purchasing property and obtaining allotments/pattas for Government land near Madhavaram. While there are two separate cases, the underlying facts and allegations remain the same.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that there is a significant delay between the alleged occurrence and the registration of the FIR. It is his specific submission that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court; hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution's case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Murali Mohan @ P.K. Mohamed Meeran, projected himself as an Advocate practising at the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, this claim was found to be false upon verification with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which issued a letter dated 30.01.2025 stating that no Advocate by the aforementioned name has been enrolled. He further contended that the total amount of the alleged fraud is Rs. 28,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- from the respective de facto complainants. As the amounts have not been recovered and the investigation is still pending, he strongly opposes the bail plea.

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and the nature of the allegations involving impersonation of a legal professional, this Court is of the view that, by this time, a major portion of the investigation might have been completed. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, 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 twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. until further orders and no application for relaxation of this condition shall be entertained for a period of 60 days. The petitioner, shall thereafter appear before the respondent police 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 petitioner 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.