R.Avudayappan @ Manoj vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2028 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2028 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Avudayappan @ Manoj vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 20 April, 2026

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  Dated : 20/04/2026

                                                        CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

                                             CRL OP(MD). No.7710 of 2026

                     R.Avudayappan @ Manoj                      ... Petitioner/Accused No.6

                                                           Vs
                     State of Tamilnadu Rep by,
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Cyber Crime Police Station,
                     Tenkasi District.
                     (Crime No.58 of 2025)                ... Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER :-

                        For bail in Crime No.58 of 2025 on the file of the respondent
                     police.

                       For Petitioner : S.Uma Mageshwari,
                                 Advocate.
                       For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan,
                                 Additional Public Prosecutor




                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis judicial custody on 31.01.2026 for the offences punishable under

Sections 318(4) of BNS and 66D of Information Technology

(Amendment) Act, 2008, in Crime No.58 of 2025 on the file of the

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.11.2025, the petitioner

along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of

Rs.5,83,007/- by using fake user ID namely, Reshma.psc. Hence, this

case.

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 only acted as agent and he has

been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2026.

Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent would submit that the offence is grave in nature and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis defacto complainant was cheated by the accused to the tune of

Rs.5,83,007/- by using fake user ID and the co-accused were released on

bail by this Court and the petitioner is having 2 previous cases not

similar in nature.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available

on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel

on either side, nature of offence, and the alleged occurrence took place

on 09.11.2025 and even according to the prosecution, the petitioner is

only acted as agent and collected money from the victims and the main

accused was secured and he was detained under Act 14 and A1 and A5

were granted bail by this Court and though the petitioner has 2 previous

cases, that cases are not in similar kind of offences and in that case, he

was released on bail and considering the period of incarceration

undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the

petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Tenkasi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent

police, 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;

[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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 5560].