Manikandan vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.11.2022 for the offences under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000 in Cr.No.11 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Thangadurai, who was working as a Company Executive had received a call and certain particulars were taken from him with regard to his credit card. Further allegation is that the person, who had called him had informed that he is the customer care manager from State Bank of India and told him that he would increase the credit card limit. Believing his representation, the defacto complainant had given his credit card details and later he was asked to reveal his OTP number and he had revealed his OTP. As such, an amount to the tune of Rs.52,512/- was withdrawn from his account and he was cheated. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that he is only earning member of his family and due to his custody, his family was unable to run the day-to-day life. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 17 days from 17.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is a member of the company, which has committed large scale scam by receiving information of ATM cards and credit cards from their card holders and swindled crores of rupees. He would submit that investigation is pending and hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the credit of Madras High Court Advocates Clerks Welfare Association, High Court of Madras, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, A/c.No.484077244 IFSC.No. IDIB000M157 and on such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore, and on further conditions that::

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of eight weeks.

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.