Madras High Court
P.J.K.Sai Ram vs The State Rep.By on 3 July, 2026
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.16438 of 2026
1. P.J.K.Sai Ram
2. Sai Prabha ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State, represented by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch (CCB-I),
EDF-I Wing,
Vepery, Chennai.
Crime No.31 of 2026 ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime
No.31 of 2026, on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Selvarasu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Intervener : Mr.Om.Prakash,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abitha Banu
(Crl.M.P.No.11414 of 2026)
For Intervener : Mr.B.Vijay
(Crl.M.P.No.11408 of 2026)
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.16502 of 2026
1. P.K.S.Prashath
2. N.Ramjee @ J.N.Jahath Ramjee ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State, represented by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch (CCB-I),
EDF-I Wing,
Vepery, Chennai.
Crime No.31 of 2026 ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime
No.31 of 2026, on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Intervener : Mr.Om.Prakash,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abitha Banu
(Crl.M.P.No.11412 of 2026)
For Intervener : Mr.B.Vijay
(Crl.M.P.No.11406 of 2026)
Crl.O.P.No.16528 of 2026
Sai Sri Lakshmi Ramjee ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State, represented by
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch (CCB-I),
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
EDF-I Wing,
Vepery, Chennai.
Crime No.31 of 2026 ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.31 of 2026, on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhakaran
Senior Counsel
for M.A.Gouthaman
For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Intervener : Mr.Om.Prakash,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Abitha Banu
(Crl.M.P.No.11415 of 2026)
For Intervener : Mr.B.Vijay
(Crl.M.P.No.11405 of 2026)
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
04.06.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 418, 424,
467, 468, 120-B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.31 of 2026, on
the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 had availed a loan of
Rs.28.56 Crores from Andhra Bank in the year 2015 by mortgaging the subject
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
property situated at T. Nagar. Upon default in repayment, the loan account was
classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act were initiated. Thereafter, the loan was assigned to the de-
facto complainant, and despite a compromise entered into before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners failed to honour the terms thereof. It is
alleged that, without redeeming the mortgage, A1 and A2 executed an
Agreement of Sale-cum-Settlement Deed dated 29.01.2021 in favour of A6
Trust before the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru, in respect of the mortgaged
property situated at Chennai. On the strength of the said settlement deed, the
petitioners received compensation of Rs.13.38 Crores from the Chennai Metro
Rail Limited (CMRL) during the acquisition proceedings, without disclosing
the subsisting mortgage over the property, thereby causing wrongful loss to the
de-facto complainant and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. Hence,
the case.
3. In Crl.O.P.No.16502 of 2026, the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and
A4; in Crl.O.P.No.16528 of 2026, the petitioner is arrayed as A5; and in
Crl.O.P.No.16438 of 2026, the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A7.
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
5. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
in Crl.O.P.No.16528 of 2026, led the arguments and would contend that the
First Information Report came to be registered on 27.05.2026 for the offences
under Sections 420, 418, 424, 467, 468, 120-B and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, and that the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on
04.06.2026. It is the case of the petitioners that A1 and A2, being the principal
borrowers, had borrowed a sum of Rs.28.65 Crores from Andhra Bank in the
year 2015 by mortgaging the subject property. A4 and A5 stood as guarantors.
Subsequently, in the year 2016, the loan account was classified as a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA), and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were
initiated. Thereafter, in the year 2019, a compromise was entered into between
the petitioners and Andhra Bank, under which the petitioners agreed to pay a
sum of Rs.35.50 Crores. However, they failed to honour the terms of the
compromise. In the meanwhile, A1 and A2 executed a settlement deed in
favour of A6 Trust, in which A5 was one of the Trustees, thereby transferring
the title of the subject property in favour of the Trust. According to the
prosecution, despite the property being under mortgage with Andhra Bank, A5
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
and A6 entered into an arrangement with the Chennai Metro Rail Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “CMRL”) and, pursuant to the compulsory
acquisition of the subject property, received a sum of Rs.13 Crores as
compensation.
6. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, prior to the
acquisition proceedings, the petitioners had obtained permission from this
Court in O.P.No.260 of 2022, and only thereafter the property was conveyed to
CMRL. By drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 01.07.2026,
the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners had handed over a Demand Draft drawn in favour of CMRL
before the Division Bench in OSA No.227 of 2025. It is further submitted that,
out of the total compensation of Rs.13 Crores received by the petitioners, a
sum of Rs.6.8 Crores has already been repaid to CMRL, and that the balance
amount would be paid within four weeks from the date of their enlargement on
bail.
7. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, at the
time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were neither furnished to the petitioners
nor communicated to their relatives. According to him, furnishing the grounds
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
of arrest is a constitutional safeguard and a mandatory requirement under
Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is also
submitted that the relatives of the petitioners were not informed about the place
where the petitioners were being detained, as mandated under Section 48(1) of
the BNSS. Hence, he prayed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail.
8. In addition to the above submissions, Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16502 of 2026, would
contend that the petitioners/A1 and A4 are aged persons suffering from various
ailments. Therefore, on medical grounds, they are entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
9. Per contra, the said contentions were stoutly opposed by Mr. Om
Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Intervener/Phoenix ARC
Limited and would submit that a complaint had been lodged against the
petitioners as early as on 21.06.2024. However, the respondent Police failed to
register the case, and only after the filing of a Contempt Petition, and when the
same was posted for hearing on 01.06.2026, the present FIR came to be
registered on 27.05.2026.
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the Intervener would further submit
that proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were initiated on
12.09.2016, possession notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 29.06.2017,
and proceedings under Section 14 were concluded on 28.03.2019. Thereafter,
the petitioners came forward with a proposal for compromise, which was
recorded on 04.06.2019. Despite such compromise, the petitioners failed to
discharge their liability. On the contrary, they dealt with the mortgaged
property, which was already the subject matter of SARFAESI proceedings. The
learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the conduct of the petitioners
in executing a settlement deed dated 29.01.2021 in favour of A6 Trust at
Bengaluru, in respect of their subject property, clearly demonstrates the extent
of the alleged fraud. According to him, the undertaking now given by the
petitioners to pay the balance sum of Rs.6 Crores is wholly illusory, and the
petitioners have initiated several litigation only with a view to defeat the lawful
claim of the Intervener. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the bail petitions.
11. Mr. B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the Intervener/CMRL,
would submit that CMRL had followed the due procedure prescribed for
acquisition of the land and was unaware of the mortgage created in favour of
Andhra Bank. According to him, acting upon the orders passed by this Court,
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
CMRL disbursed a sum of Rs.13 Crores towards compensation and was
subsequently deceived by the petitioners. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the
bail petitions.
12. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the
respondent Police, reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the Interveners as well as the prosecution case. He would further submit that
the petitioners had deliberately suppressed the mortgage created in favour of
Andhra Bank while dealing with CMRL and failed to disclose the true facts.
He would further contend that, with a view to defeat the claim of Andhra Bank
and to avoid the reflection of encumbrance in the records maintained in Tamil
Nadu, the petitioners clandestinely registered the settlement deed at Bengaluru,
thereby enabling the Trust to receive the compensation amount, which was
thereafter siphoned off by the petitioners. According to the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the conduct of the petitioners clearly
discloses a deep-rooted conspiracy in the commission of the alleged offences.
Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the bail petitions.
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already paid a sum of
Rs.6.8 Crores before this Court on 01.07.2026. The total compensation
received from CMRL is Rs.13 Crores. The learned counsel for the petitioners
undertakes that the balance amount would be remitted within a period of four
weeks. However, the said undertaking was strenuously opposed by the learned
counsel appearing for the Interveners and would contend that such an
assurance cannot be accepted or relied upon considering the past conduct of
the petitioners.
15. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Intervener invited the attention of this Court to the conduct of the petitioners in
executing an Agreement of Sale-cum-Settlement Deed at Bengaluru in respect
of a property situated in Chennai, when admittedly no property was intended to
be purchased by the petitioners at Bengaluru and, even as on date, no property
has been purchased pursuant to the said Agreement of Sale. According to the
learned Senior Counsel, the said conduct clearly discloses the criminality on
the part of the petitioners and a deep-rooted conspiracy to siphon off the public
money. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025, dated 25.10.2025,
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
wherein the relevant observations read as follows:-
“57. We are left in no doubt that the entire sordid exercise
is an attempt by the borrowers and guarantors to wriggle out of
the financial commitments towards the Bank, for which purpose,
a fraudulent scheme has been devised, denuding the public
exchequer of a substantial sum of money. CMRL will take all
measures including those provided under the Revenue Recovery
Act to secure the amounts paid by them and recover the same.”
16. From a perusal of the findings rendered by the Hon’ble Division
Bench, this Court is able to prima facie discern the fraudulent device adopted
by the petitioners to denude the public exchequer. The amount alleged to have
been cheated by the petitioners is not an insignificant amount, but a huge sum
of Rs.13 Crores. Though the petitioners have repaid a sum of Rs.6.8 Crores,
having regard to the prima facie finding that they have cheated public money,
such conduct has to be viewed with all seriousness. Though Mr. R.C.Paul
Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16502
of 2026, would seeks for bail on medical grounds, no medical records have
been produced to substantiate the said contention.
17. Therefore, having regard to the factual background of the case, this
Court is of the firm view that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, the same
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
would shock the conscience of society and embolden persons similarly placed
to swindle public money without any fear of law. Though the right to personal
liberty is sacrosanct, the larger interest of society, particularly in matters
involving economic offences any misplaced sympathy would erode the public
confidence of this system. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any
factual grounds to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
18. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
has raised a legal contention by placing reliance upon Sections 47 and 48(1) of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the petitioners
were not furnished with the grounds of arrest. In support of the said contention,
the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
1. D. Alexis Sudhakar Vs. State (Order in Crl.R.C.No.1389 of 2024,
dated 06.08.2025);
2. Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799;
3. Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2025
INSC 1288;
4. Kasireddy Upendar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in
2025 INSC 768;
5. Basheer Thaliyil Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine
Ker 2338;
6. Neeraj and another Vs. State of U.P. and another (Habeas Corpus
Writ Petition No.218 of 2026);
7. Shivam Chaurasiya, through his brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya Vs.
State of U.P., through Principal Secretary, Department of Home
12/16https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
Affairs, Lucknow and others (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.47 of
2026); and
8. Bhikhubhai Govingbhai Patel & another Vs. State of Gujarat &
another, reported in 2026 INSC 532.
9. 19. The jurisprudence relating to the supply of grounds of arrest has
been elaborately dealt with in t he above decisions, wherein it has been
consistently held that, if the grounds of arrest are not furnished to the
accused, he would be entitled to bail, irrespective of the gravity of the
offence. By placing reliance on the judgment in Kasireddy Upendar
Reddy’s case (cited supra), the learned Senior Counsel would further
contend that non-communication of the arrest to the relatives of the
arrestee would also amount to a violation of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.
20. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the learned Magistrate, in
the remand order, has categorically recorded that the grounds of arrest had
been furnished to the petitioners, which were duly acknowledged by them. It
has also been recorded that the arrest was intimated to the relative of the
accused, namely, Sri Sai Srinivasan. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) produced the copies of the grounds of
arrest and intimation to their relatives. On perusal of the same, it is seen that
each of the petitioners had received a copy of the grounds of arrest. It is the
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
case of the petitioners that they are Telugu-speaking persons and that the
grounds of arrest were furnished in English. However, it is not their case that
they are unable to understand English.
21. Further, from the signatures found in the records, it is evident that
the petitioners have signed in English. A perusal of the grounds of arrest
discloses the existence of all the necessary particulars so as to enable the
petitioners to effectively defend themselves both at the stage of remand as well
as in the bail proceedings. Therefore, this Court holds that the respondent
Police have duly complied with the constitutional and statutory mandate by
furnishing the grounds of arrest to each of the petitioners and by intimating the
fact of arrest to the nominated relative of the arrestees.
22. This case falls within the category of an economic offence, and the
nature of the transaction, as alleged by the prosecution, discloses a deep-rooted
conspiracy. Accordingly, the present case stands on a different footing and has
to be viewed with a distinct approach. Prima facie, this Court finds that the
alleged act have resulted in a substantial loss to the public exchequer. In such a
background, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side), this Court is of the considered view that, if the petitioners are
enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence. In
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
such an event, it would become extremely difficult to retrieve the public funds
cheated from the public exchequer.
23.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.
03.07.2026
1/3
kv
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch (CCB-I),
EDF-I Wing,
Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN.J.
kv
Crl.O.P.Nos.16438, 16502 and 16528 of 2026
03.07.2026
1/3
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
