Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Thirugnanam Vs The State Rep by

Thirugnanam vs The State Rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1446611

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP/10714/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thirugnanam

Respondent

The State Rep by

Excerpt

.....the alleged offences under sections 120(b), 420, 468 & 471 of indian penal code, 1860, in crime no.02 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. page1 of 52. the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons induced thedefacto complainant and others to invest money in a trust by producing forged documents and collected a sum of rs.1,75,00,000/-. the petitioner is arrayed as a9. hence, the case was registered.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner has no role in the alleged offence and he is only a temporary employee and his bank account was misused by other accused. it is further submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. the learned counsel would submit that the main accused have already been released on bail and the petitioner has been in custody for more than 30 days. hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2026. he would submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. page2 of 56. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature ofallegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned chief judicial magistrate, coimbatore, and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Thirugnanam ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police, CBCID OCU wing, Coimbatore City. Crime No. 02 of 2025 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in connection with the case in Crime No.02 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 468 & 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.02 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page1 of 5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons induced the

defacto complainant and others to invest money in a Trust by producing forged documents and collected a sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/-. The petitioner is arrayed as A9. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has no role in the alleged offence and he is only a temporary employee and his bank account was misused by other accused. It is further submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the main accused have already been released on bail and the petitioner has been in custody for more than 30 days. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2026. He would submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Page2 of 5

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of

allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, 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 two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [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

Page3 of 5 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. 30-04-2026 NSL Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official

Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

1. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

2. The Central Prison, Coimbatore.

3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID OCU wing, Coimbatore City.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page4 of 5

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

NSL 30-04-2026 Page5 of 5

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial