Authority: Madras High Court, Chennai (Special Court under TNPID Act) – Hon. Justice C. Kumarappan

Order Date: 19.06.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: B. Muthukumaran, Selvam, Chandrasekharan, Ravichandran, Suresh (all identified as Directors/Board/Committee Members of M/s. Hijau Associates Private Limited / A1).
  • Respondent: The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai.
  • Intervener: Mr. D. Selvam (Government Advocate, Criminal Side).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.P. Nos. 9153, 12214, 12217, 12218, 12220 of 2026) filed under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enlargement of bail for the petitioners in C.C. No.10 of 2023 before the Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Chennai.
  • Allegations: The petitioners are accused of offences punishable under IPC Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 420 and 409 read with 109, Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Deposit Schemes (TNPID) Act, 1997, and Sections 21(1), 21(3), 23 and 25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
  • Financial Impact: The prosecution alleges a cheating amount of Rs 4,444 crore collected from 14,521 investors (intervener cites 89,000 victims). Specific amounts attributed to petitioners:
  • Muthukumaran (A‑19): Rs 136 crore
  • Selvam (A‑9): Rs 50 crore
  • Chandrasekharan (A‑7): Rs 53 crore (376 cases)
  • Ravichandran (A‑16): Rs 133 crore (1,835 cases)
  • Suresh (A‑11): Rs 51 crore (647 cases)
  • Timeline:
  • FIR registered on 15.11.2022.
  • Charge sheet filed on 17.05.2023.
  • Petitioners remanded on 31.03.2023.
  • Petitioners have been in judicial custody for more than three years.
  • Petitioners' Arguments:
  • Prolonged pre‑trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • Investigation is ongoing; final report filed but further probes continue.
  • Several co‑accused (A25, A17, A18, A28, A41, A27, A37, A38, A39, A13, A20, A21, A22, A23) have already been released on bail, establishing parity.
  • Petitioners joined the company as directors only after the alleged fraudulent period (joined 05.09.2022 – 15.11.2022), thus should not be held liable for earlier transactions.
  • Cited Supreme Court judgments (Aravind Kejriwal Vs CBI, Vijay Nair Vs ED, Senthil Balaji Vs Deputy Director ED) supporting bail on prolonged detention.
  • Respondent & Intervener's Arguments:
  • Approximately 89,000 victims; total scam exceeds Rs 4,000 crore.
  • Main accused are still absconding; petitioners fled the country (A16 fled before FIR, returned after two years).
  • Risk of witness tampering and flight risk.
  • Parity argument rejected because co‑accused released were either employees/agriculturists with minimal role or granted statutory bail; petitioners are prime accused and directors.
  • Supreme Court in SLP No.11611 of 2023 denied bail to co‑accused A4/Soundararajan, underscoring the seriousness of the case.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The magnitude of the economic offence (large public funds, deep‑rooted conspiracy) warrants a stricter bail approach.
  • Prolonged incarceration does not automatically merit bail where the offence involves massive financial loss and risk to investigation.
  • The petitioners’ prior flight (A16) and the continued absconding of main accused heighten concerns of tampering.
  • Parity cannot be claimed as the petitioners’ roles differ significantly from those granted bail.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed all five Criminal Original Petitions, thereby refusing bail to the petitioners.
  • The petitioners remain in custody pending trial.

Topics: Financial Fraud, Bail Denial