Allowed¶38

Velmurugan v. the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Jun 2025CRL MP/5584/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail condition modification under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; deposit of Rs.2,00,000 balance to credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023; automatic cancellation of bail on default; Supreme Court deprecation of monetary-deposit bail offers followed by evasion (Kundan Singh v. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, SLP(C) 9111 of 2025, 23.06.2025); approbating and reprobating; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; DCB Police Station, Cuddalore District; petitioner S.Velmurugan; counsel K.Gandhi Kumar; APP Sugendran.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was ordered (without costs): the deposit condition was tightened - the petitioner must deposit the remaining Rs.2,00,000 to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023 within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the bail order stands automatically cancelled. ¶38

Velmurugan Vs the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition in Para 4 of the bail order in Crl.O.P.No.32556 of 2024 dated 07.01.2025 - deposit of the remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000 to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023 within six weeks from the date of release on bail - should be modified.

¶19

Court's answer

The Court modified the deposit timeline, directing the petitioner to deposit the remaining Rs.2,00,000 within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, rather than the seven weeks sought by counsel in rejoinder.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

If the remaining Rs.2,00,000 is not paid within the two-week period, the bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J. - Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.32556 of 2024 (decided 26.06.2025). S.Velmurugan, who had obtained bail in Cr.No.32 of 2023 (DCB Police Station, Cuddalore District) on a voluntary undertaking to deposit Rs.4,00,000 in two instalments (Rs.2,00,000 at furnishing surety and the balance within six weeks of release), paid the first instalment but failed to pay the remainder and moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to modify the Para 4 condition, his counsel seeking seven more weeks. Noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kundan Singh vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9111 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025, had strongly deprecated the practice of offering monetary deposits to secure bail and then evading payment, the Court shortened the period: the remaining Rs.2,00,000 was to be deposited within two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the bail order would stand automatically cancelled. Petition ordered; no costs.

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.32556 of 2024

S.Velmurugan

... Petitioner

The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to modify the condition in Para 4 i.e., "the remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/shall be deposited to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023 within a period of six weeks from the date of release on bail" imposed in Crl.O.P.No.32556 of 2024 dated 07.01.2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : K.Gandhi Kumar

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to modify the condition in Para 4 i.e., the remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023 within a period of six weeks from the date of release on bail imposed in Crl.O.P.No.32556 of 2024 dated 07.01.2025.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that based on the voluntary submissions made by the petitioner, this Court granted bail to the petitioner on a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakh Only) to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023 at the time of furnishing surety and to pay the remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of release on bail. Though the petitioner had paid the initial amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only), he was unable to raise the balance funds and thereby, the present application has been filed seeking to modify the condition.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025

¶24

Per contra Mr.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that this Court considered the bail application only based on the voluntary submission made by the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) to the credit of Cr.No.32 of 2023 and this Court was generous enough to grant him time to pay the amount in two instalments, however the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court and he would object for modification of condition.

¶25

The petitioner having paid Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) and been released on bail, has willfully evaded from paying the remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only). The Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶26

in the case of Kundan Singh vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central

¶27

Excise , in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9111 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025, has deprecated such practice. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:-

¶28

“10. We strongly deprecate this practice. If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made, at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025

¶32

may have granted or may not have granted relief to the petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process and cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible is that both, the original bail order of 08.05.2025 and the order of modification dated 14.05.2025 granting final relief, will have to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court. ”

¶33

By way of rejoinder, Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks further seven (7) weeks time to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) as imposed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.32556 of 2024 dated 07.01.2025.

¶34

Recording the submissions of Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court directs the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is not paid within a period of two (2) weeks, the bail order shall stands automatically cancelled.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.M.P.No.5584 of 2025

¶38