High CourtsSingle Bench

S.Vairamani vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 MAD CK 0177

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.Kumarappan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 3(5), 190, 269, 318, 318(4) · Banning Of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 — Section 21(1), 21(2), 21(3)
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition No. 12469 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 658 words

C.Kumarappan, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.11.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 318 & 190 of BNS, 2023 altered into Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 21(1), 21(2) & 21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused had been running a chit fund business for several years without obtaining a valid licence, in violation of the statutory provisions. It is alleged that he collected a sum of approximately Rs.10 Crores from nearly 150 victims and subsequently misappropriated the same. Hence, the case.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 22.11.2025 and that there are six accused in the case, of whom the petitioner is arrayed as A1. According to the FIR, the specific allegation against the petitioner pertains to cheating to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 58 years and is willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

4.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner had misappropriated approximately Rs.10 Crores collected from nearly 150 victims and that the investigation is still in progress. She further submitted that the petitioner's earlier bail application had already been dismissed on 10.03.2026. Therefore, she prayed for the dismissal of the present bail application.

5.

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

6.

This Court has perused the order passed in the earlier bail application, wherein the petitioner's request for bail was rejected, taking into consideration the pendency of the investigation and the negative impact upon the society of enlarging such type of an accused. However, it is seen that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.11.2025. Though the learned Government Advocate submitted that the investigation is still pending, this Court is of the view that major portion of the investigation could have been completed by this time. Further, considering the age of the petitioner, who is about 58 years old, and taking into account the long period of incarceration, this Court is of the firm view that further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the following conditions:

7.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 respondent police daily twice at 10.30 a.m and 05.30 p.m, until further orders;

[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.