Rajendran vs State

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 179 and 180 of BNS in Crime No.547 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner printed counterfeit currency and deposited twelve numbers of 500 rupee notes into the teller machine of ICICI Bank, which was traced based on the video footage and the petitioner was arrested and has been in custody since 23.12.2025.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.12.2025 and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and therefore, he prayed 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 has three previous cases, all resulting in conviction, and that printing and other equipments were seized from him. He further submitted that the investigation has been completed. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

This Court earlier dismissed the petitioner’s bail vide order dated 12.01.2026 on the ground of bad antecedents and pending investigation. Considering the substantial period of custody already undergone by the petitioner before this Court, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

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, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix his 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 his identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[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.