Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 02-11-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Ragothkumar S/o Kanjamalai, residing at No.1/347 Murugan Kovil Street, Kottiyampoondi, Vikravandi Taluk, Villupuram District.
  • Respondent: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Police Station, Villupuram District (Cr.No.408 of 2026).
  • Petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking regular bail.
  • Alleged offence: Section 318(4) of the BNSS concerning purchase of agricultural produce.
  • Between 01.04.2026 and 16.04.2026, 707 quintals of black gram were bought for the first accused, a trader licensed by the Cuddalore Market Committee, from 225 farmers at the Vikravandi Regulated Market for a total consideration of Rs 59,09,015.
  • Partial payments recorded on 08.04.2026, 10.04.2026, 16.04.2026 and 24.06.2026; the balance of Rs 40,86,159 remained unpaid.
  • The petitioner acted as an agent, signing for removal of 480.90 quintals on 08.04, 10.04 and 13.04.2026, claiming a price fall; the produce was allegedly sold in Madurai and Virudhunagar, with proceeds deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioner and the first accused.
  • The first accused’s house was found locked for three months and his mobile switched off. A complaint by the Market Supervisor was received on 13.08.2026; the FIR was registered on 09.09.2026 after an enquiry.
  • The petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2026 after appearing before the District Crime Branch, Villupuram, in obedience to a summons under Section 94 read with Section 179 of the BNSS issued on a petition of the Secretary of the Villupuram Market Committee. He has been in judicial custody since that date.
  • Submissions by petitioner’s counsel: (a) petitioner is a daily‑wage worker who acted on the first accused’s instructions; (b) part payments recorded in the FIR negate dishonest intention at inception; (c) remedy under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 is available; (d) petitioner complained on 31.07.2026 of harassment by the Market Supervisor; (e) arrest was unnecessary for an offence punishable up to seven years; (f) petitioner has no antecedents and his wife is in the third trimester of pregnancy.
  • Government Advocate’s opposition: petitioner alone has been arrested while the first accused is absconding; both allegedly took produce worth Rs 40,86,159 unpaid; two similar complaints are pending; investigation is ongoing.

Legal Reasoning

  • The Court held that the question of whether the transaction constitutes cheating or merely a default in payment is not determinable in a bail petition; dishonest intention must be shown at the inception of the transaction, and a later failure to pay does not, by itself, establish cheating.
  • The part payments noted in the FIR are acknowledged; the petitioner is described in the FIR as a licensee of the Villupuram Market Committee and proprietor of a rice mill, who acted as an agent and signed the produce out of the market.
  • Custody is not a means of recovering the outstanding sum; detention is justified only to secure the accused’s presence, protect evidence, or prevent a further offence, as per Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240.
  • The investigation remains pending; the material on which it rests includes auction records, market fee receipts, removal permits (with the market) and bank records of the two accused (with banks), some of which have already been examined.
  • The petitioner has been in custody for a little over five weeks. The first accused, who is the principal alleged offender, remains at large, but his absence does not justify continued detention of the petitioner. Conditions can be imposed to ensure the petitioner’s presence.

Final Outcome

  • The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon execution of a bond for a sum of Rs 25,000 (Rupees Twenty‑Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for an equal amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi.
  • Additional conditions:
  • Sureties must affix the petitioner’s photographs and left thumb impression on the Suretyship Application (Judicial Form No.46) and the Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one identity proof.
  • The petitioner shall report daily before the respondent police at 10:30 A.M. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
  • The petitioner shall not abscond during investigation or trial.
  • The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses during investigation or trial.
  • On breach of any condition, the Magistrate/Trial Court may pass appropriate orders as if the petitioner had been released on bail by the Court, following P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].
  • If the accused subsequently absconds, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the BNSS.

Topics: Bail, Agricultural Market Dispute, Criminal Procedure