[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
W.Althaf Thasif vs State Rep. By on 20 February, 2026
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 & 26476 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.17988, 17998,18947, 18952, 20744,
20745, 20754, 20757 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.26466/2025:
W.Althaf Thasif ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
E.O.W., Thiruvannamalai District.
2.S.Dhanalakshmi
3.G.Raji Ammal
4.D.Baskar
5.L.Nathiya
6.S.Yasmeen
7.R.Gurunathan
8.P.Sheela
9.K.Devi
10.T.Eswari
11.R.Yasodha
12.B.Drakshayani
13.K.Anusuya
14.R.Deepa ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.341
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
of 2025 in Crime No.01 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special
Court under TNPID Act, Chennai, dated 12.09.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Advocate
For Mr.M.Mohamed Riyas
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
For RR2 to R14 : Mr.K.Premkumar
Crl.O.P.No.26476/2025:
W.Althaf Thasif ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offence Wing,
Vellore District. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to stay the operation of the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2025 in Crime No.01 of 2024 on the file of the learned
Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai, dated 12.09.2025,
pending disposal of the above petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jeremiah
For Mr.M.Mohamed Riyas
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Impleading Petitioners:
In Crl.M.P.No.20744 & 20745/2025 : Mr.T.John Samuel
In Crl.M.P.No.18947 & 18952/2025 : M/s.Anitha Arun Kumar
In Crl.M.P.No.20754 & 20757/2025 : Mr.J.Joel Nitheesh
In Crl.M.P.No.667/2026 : Mr.C.Rajaguru
COMMON ORDER
The Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
have been filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2025 and the first
respondent in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2025, challenging the common order passed
by the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) (TNPID) Act, 1997, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025, whereby, the Trial Court has
cancelled the bail granted to him vide order dated 12.02.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.427
of 2024.
2. The petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2025 is the Investigating Officer of
Crime No.1 of 2024 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,
Vellore District. The petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2025 are the victims of
the very same crime number. It is alleged that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif was
earlier granted default bail by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.427 of 2024, dated
12.02.2024 with certain conditions, since the same is violated, petitions in
Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2025 have been filed seeking
cancellation of bail and the same was allowed by an common order dated
12.09.2025 by the learned Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of
Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997. Challenging the
cancellation of bail order, the bail petitioner has filed the present petitions
seeking to set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners by joining hands with
other accused flouted various unregistered chits in the name of APR Groups in
and around the areas of Cheyyar, Vandavasi, Mangal, Venpakkam, Kattupakkam
and other places. They collected huge amount from the depositors to the tune of
more than Rs.100 crores and subsequently failed to return the chit amounts,
which resulted in registration of the above crime number and the
petitioner/Althaf Thasif was arrested on 11.11.2023. Thereafter, he was granted
statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No.427 of 2024, dated 12.02.2024 with certain
conditions and thereafter the said condition was modified by an order dated
13.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.661 of 2024. Apart from that, another case in Crime
No.239 of 2023, on the file of the Pochampalli Police Station has also been
registered with regard to the cheating of 59 depositors. Crime No.239 of 2023
and the present case in Crime No.01 of 2024 being investigated by the EOW,
Tiruvannamalai, hence there was a delay in concluding the investigation. In the
meantime, the petitioner herein was granted default bail. After released on
default bail, the petitioner joined hands with his wife have continuously
involved in collection of funds and committed similar offences. The list of
persons who have cheated subsequently has also been named in the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
4. It is alleged that one of the victim namely Rubina W/o. Mahesh in
Crime No.1 of 2024, lodged a subsequent complaint, dated 06.01.2025 stating
that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif has approached and demanded her to pay a sum
of Rs.61,000/- so that he would give huge return of Rs.5,50,000/- after some
period. Accordingly, she has paid the money by way of online payment and
subsequently she has been cheated. Similar complaints were also lodged by one
Sowkath Ali and Lakshmi, on 06.01.2025 that they have also been asked to pay
some amount as a deposit and subsequently they have also been cheated. Apart
from that, some of the depositors namely Perumal, Sumithra, Mrs.Kumari, W/o.
R.Subramani, Noor Mohammed, S/o. Ziahudeen, Rajeswari, W/o.Sarathy,
Aneesh Fathima, W/o. Mohammed Raja, Murugavel S/o. Ranganathan, Asha,
W/o. Kali, Thulasi, W/o. Maruthamalai have appeared before the Trial Court in
person and submitted that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif has threatened them and
also managed to obtain documents as if they have settled the depositors, hence,
there is tampering of witnesses. Based on the above facts, the petitions have
been filed seeking cancellation of bail to the petitioner/Althaf Thasif.
5. The contentions raised and the facts pleaded above have been disputed
by the petitioners herein and submitted that they have not involved in any such
subsequent offences and purely on the instigation of the Investigating Officer, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
false complaints have been collected from some of the persons. One of the
complaint against the petitioners is that they collected money from the victims
namely Roja, Malathi and also petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2025
(Petitioners in cancellation of bail petition). Whereas, already a criminal
complaint lodged by the said Roja against the petitioner/Althaf Thasif was
registered in Crime No.3 of 2025, on the file of the All Women Police Station,
Vellore and the same was investigated and found that it is a “mistake of fact”.
Hence, the accusation that the petitioners herein once again involved in
collection of funds is motivated for the purpose of cancelling the bail of the
petitioner/Althaf Thasif. He further submitted that the petitioners did not
personally collect any money as alleged by the subsequent complainants.
6. It is further stated that during the pendency of proceedings, the
petitioners settled outstanding amounts with certain individuals since it is a case
of non-repayment of deposited amount. Hence with a bonafide intention they
have made payments to fulfil their promises made by them, and some
photographs were taken and the same has been misused as if the petitioners
collected money from others. Admittedly, the petitioner/Althaf Thasif was
arrested and he was in custody up to the statutory period for filing the final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
report. However, the respondents have not chosen to file the final report and the
petitioner/Althaf Thasif has availed the statutory bail and complied the
conditions. After compliance of the conditions for the substantial period, he
filed a separate application for relaxation of bail conditions. Accordingly, the
conditions have been modified that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif was directed to
appear on every second and fourth week of Monday before the respondent
police in Crl.M.P.No.661 of 2024 vide order dated 13.03.2024 in which, he has
duly complied the above conditions.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
majority of the allegations levelled by the victims is that they made payments to
the petitioner/Althaf Thasif after his release on statutory bail. These individuals
were already claimed to be a victims in the present case and in the earlier cases.
That being so, there was no occasion or no need for them to pay additional
amounts to the petitioners and the payments have been made voluntarily by
them through UPI transactions and admittedly, nowhere the petitioners herein
have issued receipts for payments. The manner in which the payments have
been made by the alleged new victims clearly revealed that the money was paid
for the purpose of creating cause of action/creating grounds for cancelling the
bail granted to the petitioners. It is an intentional act on the part of some of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
victims by colluding with the police and paid money as if the petitioners have
promised that he would pay high returns or interest. All the persons are aware
that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif was arrested, and in custody, and it is the
allegation that several crores have been cheated by the petitioners. That being
the case, it is a false accusation of paying money, and this accusation is made,
for the purpose of detain the petitioner after cancelling the bail. Hence, the
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif, who was on
statutory bail and so far no final report is filed and if the final report is filed with
valid grounds for cancelling the bail, on the basis of gravity of offence, the
prosecution can seek cancellation of bail at that point of time. However, by
relying on the false allegations and without properly appreciating the above
facts the trial Court erroneously accepted the case of the respondent.
Consequently the order passed by the trial Court, cancelling of statutory bail
granted to the petitioner/Althaf Thasif is not proper. Hence, he prays to allow
the present petitions.
8. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the various victims
submitted that it is not a simple case of cheating, it is a case of collecting huge
amounts in the name of various attracting schemes by inducing the general
public. As of now, the amount involved in this case is more than Rs.100 crores
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
and the investigation in this case is going on and investigation spans over
several districts and several victims. It is stated by some of the victims that the
petitioners have collected some money/deposits through one Roja and Malathi,
and there are other victims who have paid cash directly to the petitioners herein.
Apart from that, witnesses were appeared before the concerned trial Court and
stated that the petitioners have threatened them and trying to hamper the
investigation and hence, it is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the
petitioner. They further submitted that the investigation of this case is going on
and one of the main condition that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif shall not indulge
in similar offences whereas, the petitioner joined hands with other accused was
involved in similar offence once again, during complying the bail conditions,
hence, it is a valid ground for cancelling the bail. He further relied on various
receipts alleged to have been issued by the petitioners herein and also some
photographs submitted before this Court. Apart from that, several new cases
were also registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaint lodged by
the victims. Hence, it is a clear case of violations and prays to cancel the bail
granted to the petitioner.
9. This Court considered the submissions made on both sides and also
perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
10. While granting statutory bail to the petitioner/Althaf Thasif herein in
Crl.M.P.No.427 of 2024 vide order dated 12.02.2024, the Trial Court has
imposed condition No.3 that “the petitioner/accused shall not commit any
offences similar to the alleged offences in this case” and condition No.5 that
“the petitioner/accused shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not make
any inducement, threat or promise to any persons.”
11. The petitioner/Althaf Thasif was arrested on 11.11.2023 in Crime
No.613 of 2023 by the Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai for the alleged offences U/s.406, 420 r/w 4(1), 76(1) of Chit
Funds Act, 1982. While the petitioner/Althaf Thasif moved the bail application
in Crl.M.P.No.1615 of 2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvannamalai, the investigation was transferred to the District Crime Branch
and offences were altered to U/s. 406, 420, Section 4, 76(1) of Chit Fund Act
and Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)
Act, 1978 and the said application was dismissed on 28.11.2023. Aggrieved
over the above said order, the petitioner/Althaf Thasif preferred a bail
application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.27957 of 2023. During pendency of
the investigation, a fresh FIR in Crime No.1 of 2024 was registered for the
alleged offences U/s. 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 109 IPC, U/s.4(1) r/w 76(1) of The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
Chit Funds Act, 1982 Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 Sec.21(3), 23, 25 of the BUDS Act, 2019 and
Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997.
12. The petitioner/Althaf Thasif was under judicial custody and applied
for Statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C and the same was considered
and statutory bail was granted on 12.02.2024. While granting bail, the Trial
Court has recorded that the petitioner/Althaf Thasif was in judicial custody for
the past 92 days and no final report has been filed, hence he is entitled for bail.
However, the trial Court has chosen to impose certain conditions including the
two conditions as stated above. The prosecution contention is that the accused
has once again involved in collection of funds, and thereby committing similar
offences. This contention is based on the fact that, one of the former associates
of the bail petitioner, namely Roja, collected money from some of the victims.
However, this Court is unable to subscribe this contention since it is an admitted
fact that the said Roja has already filed a criminal case against the bail
petitioner, and it is alleged that she is the victim of the harassment from the
hands of the petitioner/Althaf Thasif. There was a categorical enmity prevailed
between them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
13. That being the case, the defacto complainant claiming that the said
Roja collected money on behalf of the petitioner, seems to be a state-
orchestrated move for the purpose of initiating vindictive action against the bail
petitioner. It is also further alleged that the bail petitioner and his family
members also separately collected money, and for proving the same, they relied
on some photographs. On perusal it shows that the bail petitioner, his family
members and others holding a tray containing cash and gold and that it has been
taken for the purpose of using the same as evidence. But, these images could
easily be interpreted in two ways that either private parties handing over the
cash and gold jewels to the bail petitioner or the bail petitioner returning them
as promised under the scheme. It is the specific case of the bail petitioner that
he was returning the cash and jewels, hence the photographs were taken to
record this settlement and to use as evidence of repayment. Similarly, though it
is also stated that other cases have been registered, and the complainant have
paid money but they do not clearly stated that the victims paid money directly
to the bail petitioner, after he was released on bail. It is a specific case that the
complaints are motivated with intention to detain the bail petitioner by making
false averments. They have not able to produce any receipts, except a
handwritten notes alleged to have been issued by the bail petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
14. This Court is of the view that the documents and other connected
materials produced to show that the bail petitioner has involved in subsequent
offence is not substantiated and the Trial Court has not properly appreciated
these facts. Still, the investigation remains incomplete and no final report has
been filed. Even if the bail petitioner remanded to judicial custody, he cannot be
detained for the very same offence beyond the investigation period. Any alleged
violation of bail conditions does not justify detention beyond the mandatory
period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
15. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that all the grounds
raised herein for cancellation of bail can be re-agitated only after the final report
is filed. It is well settled that, if the investigation reveals the commission of a
serious offence and a final report is filed, bail granted under Section 167 (2)
Cr.P.C., could be cancelled, as held by the Apex Court in Rajnikant Jivanlal
Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, (1989) 3 SCC 532; AIR (1990) SC 71. But it
requires filing of the cancellation of bail petition.
16. In the present case, though it is stated that the petitioners have
committed very serious offences of misappropriation and cheating the general
public to the extent of more than Rs.100 crores, such grounds would be valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
only if it raised in cancellation of bail petition filed after completion of
investigation before the Trial Court. Hence, I am of the view that the
prosecution is at liberty to file a cancellation of bail petition once they filed the
final report in this case. On such filing of the cancellation of bail petition, the
Trial Court may consider any valid grounds for cancellation in accordance with
the procedures contemplated under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
17. Accordingly, the common order of cancellation of bail ordered by the
trial Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.91 and 341 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 is hereby set
aside and liberty is granted to the prosecution to file appropriate petition for
cancellation of bail as observed in the earlier paragraph. Crl.M.P.Nos.18947,
18952, 20744, 20745, 20754 and 20745 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2026
have been filed seeking to implead them as proposed respondents in
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 & 26476 of 2025, since they are not party in Crl.M.P.Nos.91
and 341 of 2025 and already arguments were concluded, and orders were passed
today, this Court is not inclined to allow the petitions. Hence, these Criminal
Miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.
18. With the above observations, these Criminal Original Petitions stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions in
Crl.M.P.Nos. 17988 & 17998 of 2025 stand closed.
20.02.2026
ssi
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ssi
To
1.The Special Judge, Special Court, TNPID Act, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, E.O.W., Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Economic Offence Wing, Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 & 26476 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.17988, 17998,18947, 18952, 20744,
20745, 20754, 20757 of 2025 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
Crl.O.P.Nos.26466 and 26476 of 2025
20.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:40 pm )
