Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: R. Sudhir Shankar, represented by Mr. S. Kasirajan, seeks enlargement of bail in Criminal Original Petition No. 4083 of 2026 filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
  • Respondent: The State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, Guindy, Chennai, and Government Advocate Mr. R. Ganesh.
  • Interveners: Mr. T. Harish Chowdhari (Crl.O.P.No.3554 of 2026), Mr. R. Thirumoorthy (Crl.O.P.No.3593 of 2026), Mr. A. Ashwinkumar (Crl.O.P.No.4319 of 2026).
  • The case stems from Crime No.14 of 2024 investigated by police; petitioner was arrested on 12 September 2024 and remanded to judicial custody.
  • Allegations: Petitioner, along with Managing Director A2 of M/s. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Limited – Nidhi Company, and other directors, allegedly collected deposits from the public through schemes promising high returns, defaulted on repayment, and diverted funds for personal gain. The scheme involved approximately 21,832 depositors, many senior citizens, and deposits totalling about Rs 600 crore.
  • Additional allegations include pledge of roughly 1,300 kg of gold ornaments to the first accused Benefit Fund, of which only 487 g have been accounted for, leaving a large portion untraced.
  • Petitioner served as Director for one year and nine months and is alleged to have been a Director in 19 companies where A2 also held directorship, with authority to operate and sign cheques.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after considering submissions from petitioner’s counsel, interveners, and the Government Advocate, found that the petitioner’s role is comparable to that of the main accused A2.
  • The Court noted the absence of identifiable assets corresponding to the alleged Rs 600 crore deposits and the disappearance of the majority of pledged gold.
  • The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s dismissal of A2’s bail petition on 09 March 2026, concluding no distinguishing circumstance exists for the petitioner.
  • Consequently, the Court dismissed Criminal Original Petition No. 4083 of 2026 and refused to enlarge bail for the petitioner.

Topics: Criminal Bail, Financial Fraud