Paulraj v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Inspector of Police
CRL OP(MD)/14258/2026 · 2026-07-14
K Rajasekar
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 49433 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 49433 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14258 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14258 of 2026 Paulraj
...Petitioner
Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.24 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant 2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Thoothukudi. ... 2nd Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14258 of 2026 and 468 of IPC, in Crime No.24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and now being investigated by the second respondent, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was running an auto consultancy business. While taking insurance policy for the three wheeler auto, they fabricated the policy of the two wheeler as if it was taken for the two wheeler auto and subsequently, when the vehicle was met with an accident, verification was done with regard to the policy. At that time, it came to the light that the policy issued was fabricated policy. Hence, the case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 04.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Co-accused in this case has been released on bail by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that as on date only one complaint with regard to one vehicle 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14258 of 2026 has been lodge. Investigation in this case is still pending. The petitioner has no previous case. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offences, the petitioner has no previous case, co-accused also released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration and I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ottapidaram, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall appear before the second respondent, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders: [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected; 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14258 of 2026 [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS. (K R S J)
09.07.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ottapidaram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Pasuvanthanai Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.24 of 2026)
4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14258 of 2026 3.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Thoothukudi. 4.The Superintendent, District Jail, Thoothukudi. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14258 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14258 of 2026 Date : 14.07.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis