V.J.Vijayakumar Vs State represented by

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.03.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.M.P.Nos.3778, 3917, 4037 & 4536 of 2026 in Crl.A.Nos.237, 242, 247 & 262 of 2026

¶6

V.J.Vijayakumar @ Seenu ...Petitioner in all petitions

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation/ Anti-Corruption Branch, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai. ...Respondent in all petitions

¶9

Common Prayer: Criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS, seeking to suspend the sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellants in the judgments all dated 09.01.2026 in C.C.Nos.17, 22, 24 & 18 of 2013 respectively, by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court for CBI Cases, Chennai and direct the release of the appellant on bail with suitable conditions if any, pending disposal of the criminal appeals.

¶10

In all petitions:

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Babu For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

Though the matters have been listed as different serial numbers, since the issue involved in all these petitions is interconnected, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, these petitions are heard together and decided by way of this common order.

¶16

These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking suspension of the respective sentences imposed by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, in C.C.Nos.17, 22, 24 & 18 of 2013, vide judgments all dated 09.01.2026.

¶17

The convictions and sentences imposed against the

¶18

petitioner/appellant, vide impugned judgments are as follows:-

¶19

In C.C.Nos.17, 22 & 24 of 2013:

¶20

*Under Section*	*Sent*	*ence*
120B r/w. 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2)	one year imprisonment	r and a	igorous fine of
r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act	Rs.5,000/-, in undergo three imprisonment.	defa months	ult, to simple
420 of IPC	one year imprisonment	r and a	igorous fine of
	Rs.1,000/-, in undergo three imprisonment.	defa months	ult, to simple

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

In C.C.No.18 of 2013:

¶24

*Under Section*	*Sent*	*ence*
120B r/w. 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act	one year imprisonment Rs.5,000/-, i undergo three imprisonment.	r and a n defa months	igorous fine of ult, to simple
420 of IPC	one year imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, i undergo three imprisonment.	r and a n defa months	igorous fine of ult, to simple
471 r/w. 468 of IPC	one year imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, i undergo three imprisonment.	r and a n defa months	igorous fine of ult, to simple

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the petitioner herein is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in these cases. He further submitted that this Court, vide orders all dated 06.02.2026 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1556, 2007, 1772 & 2082 of 2026 in Crl.A.Nos.97, 138, 118 & 141 of 2026 respectively and vide order dated 02.03.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.3886 of 2026 made in Crl.A.No.240 of 2026, had suspended the sentence imposed on the co-accused persons. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had paid the entire fine amount imposed by the trial Court and that, on 09.01.2026, the trial court had suspended the respective sentence 3/7

¶26

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

¶27

imposed on the petitioner for a period of one month. He also submitted that there are arguable points in the criminal appeals, which are unlikely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and the petitioner/ appellant has a fair chance of succeeding in the appeals and hence, the respective sentence imposed on the petitioner/appellant may be suspended and the petitioner/appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for

¶29

the respondent submitted that in these cases, A1 is the Loan officer and the Bank officials who were examined as witnesses have clearly stated that specific criteria and eligibility requirements exist for the Synd Nivas Housing Loan and guidelines have also been issued via circular. Further, the Chief Manager (Vigilance), Syndicate Bank conducted an internal investigation into the loan sanctioned by Al and the subsequent report confirmed that A1 sanctioned the loan without following prescribed procedures. He further submitted that investigation revealed that the income tax returns filed by the accused loanees were forged and the seal and signature of Chartered Accountant were also found to be fraudulent. PW6, a witness from the Chartered Accountant Association, confirmed that no such Chartered Accountant is registered with their Association under the name found in the income tax returns. Further, one of the 4/7

¶30

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

¶31

Chartered Accountants appeared as a witness and testified that he had not signed any income tax returns produced by the accused persons. He also submitted that the specimen signatures from the witnesses and signatures found in the documents were collected and sent to a forensic expert and P.W.11/Forensic Expert had submitted a report confirming the forgery committed in these cases and consequently, the loans have since become NPAs and the Bank incurred heavy loss. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these petitions.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of suspension of sentences to the petitioner, till the disposal of the criminal appeals, on the following conditions :-

¶34

(i) The petitioner/appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two common sureties for a like sum in all the cases in C.C.Nos.17, 18, 22 and 24 of 2013, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶35

5/7

¶36

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

¶37

(ii) The petitioner/appellant shall appear before the trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., until the disposal of the criminal appeals.

¶38

(iii) If the petitioner is not able to appear before the trial Court on that day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the Trial Court.

¶39