Moorthi, S/O.Vaiyapuri vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 20, 21(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Money Lending Entities (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Act, 2025 @ to Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS read with Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Money Lending Entities (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Act, 2025 in Crime No.88 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant had purchased a JCB vehicle by availing loan from a registered finance company and committed wilful default in repayment. Due to persistent default, the petitioner, being an authorised representative of the finance company, went to repossess the hypothecated vehicle. At that time, the de-facto complainant poured petrol on himself and attempted self-immolation and unfortunately, the de-facto complainant died on 23.02.2026. Hence, the present case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the entire occurrence took place in course of the attempt made by the petitioner to repossess the vehicle due to the default committed by the de-facto complainant/deceased. He would further submit that he has no previous case and that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 14.02.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police drew the attention of this Court to Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Money Lending Entities (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Act, 2025 and submitted that there is presumption for an abetment of suicide. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has no previous case and notwithstanding the statutory provision considering that the investigation might have been completed, this Court is of the view that, no further judicial custody of the petitioner is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain stringent 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 each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram District 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 daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks;

[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 absconds, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.