AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.08.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS and 66D of IT Act in Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of ₹1,09,14,000 through an online trading scam, inducing him to transfer the said amount from his account to various other accounts. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that his account was utilized as a mule account, into which a sum of ₹55,450 from the de facto complainant’s account was deposited. Hence the complaint.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused and He further submitted that a total of 11 complaints are currently pending against the petitioner’s account. Consequently, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); and considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner since 08.08.2026, this Court is of the firm view that further incarceration of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain 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 XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that:
[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 remit the alleged amount of ₹55,450 to the de facto complainant's account via Demand Draft (DD), RTGS, or NEFT, and subsequently produce the relevant receipt or acknowledgment before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, at the time of executing the bond.
[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[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.