B

Couple arrested for cheating, threatening realtor in Madurai

EFORE THE HON‟BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO. I AT MADURAI
Cr. No. 64 of 2025
(On the file of Respondent Police Station)

1.Jai Balaji Subramaniyan,
S/o Mohan,
No.RH 12, Meenakshi Avenue,
1st Main Road, Kalai Nagar,
Madurai – 625020.

2. Kalavathi
W/o Jai Balaji Subramaniyan
No.RH 12, Meenakshi Avenue,
1st Main Road, Kalai Nagar,
Madurai – 625020. …Petitioner/Accused
..VS..
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by it‟s the inspector of police,
Central Crime Branch,
Madurai City
Crime No.64/2025 …Respondent/Complainant

REMAND REJECTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 187
BNSS, 2023
It is Most Humbly Submitted Before this Hon‟ble Court,
1. The petitioner/accused is arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 64 of 2025 on the file of the Madurai City CCB Police Station and is produced before this Hon‟ble Court for remand. The petitioner respectfully submits this petition opposing the said remand.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the accused abovenamed has been arrested on 05.02.2026 at 7.30 the respondent police and is being produced before this Hon’ble Court today 05.02.2026.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the present case is registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, both of which are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.
4. It is submitted that no notice of appearance or prior intimation, as mandated under the arrest safeguards corresponding to Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (now continued as Section 35(3) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), was ever served on the petitioner prior to the arrest.
5. The petitioner was neither informed of the grounds necessitating arrest nor afforded an opportunity to cooperate with the investigation, despite being available and willing at all times.
6. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 laid down binding and
mandatory directions to prevent unnecessary arrests and mechanical authorisation of detention, while interpreting
Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(which is section 35 and 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court expressly held that arrest is not automatic for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and cautioned that police officers shall not arrest routinely, nor shall Magistrates authorise detention casually or mechanically.
7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further directed that the Investigating Officer must satisfy himself as to the necessity of arrest in accordance with Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C., (Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS) and must be provided with a statutory checklist, duly filled in, recording reasons and materials justifying arrest, which shall be forwarded to the Magistrate at the time of production of the accused. The Magistrate, in turn, is obligated to peruse such report and record independent satisfaction before authorising detention
8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also mandated that, where arrest is not required, the decision not to arrest shall be communicated to the Magistrate within the stipulated time, and that a notice of appearance under Section 41-A
Cr.P.C. must be served on the accused, unless extended
by the Superintendent of Police for reasons recorded in writing.
9. It was unequivocally held that non-compliance with these directions renders the arrest illegal, exposes the police officer to departmental action and contempt of court, and further that authorisation of detention by a Magistrate without recording reasons in compliance with the aforesaid safeguards would likewise invite disciplinary action by the High Court.
10. The principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC
273 continue to apply with full force under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the BNSS substantively preserves and reiterates the arrest safeguards earlier contained in Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, Sections 35, 36 and 37 of the BNSS, 2023 mandate that arrest shall not be made in a routine or mechanical manner, require the police officer to record reasons and necessity for arrest, and provide for issuance of notice of appearance where arrest is not required.
11. Further, Sections 187 and 188 of the BNSS, 2023 cast a statutory duty upon the Magistrate to scrutinise the legality and necessity of arrest at the time of first production and to refuse authorisation of detention where the arrest is not in compliance with law. These provisions, read conjointly with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, ensure that the constitutional safeguards relating to personal liberty, due process, and judicial oversight as articulated in Arnesh Kumarremain fully operative under the BNSS regime.
12. It is respectfully submitted that though the FIR in Crime No. 64 of 2024 was registered on 25.10.2025, no coercive or investigative action whatsoever was taken by the respondent police for a considerable period thereafter. Only subsequent to the petitioner filing a complaint before the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta against the Hon‟ble Minister Thiru P. Thiaga Rajanon 05.12.2025, and thereafter instituting a Writ Petition for Mandamus before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras W.P.No.3825 of 2026 on 23.01.2026 seeking a direction to the Lokayukta to consider the said representation, further developments ensued. Upon being apprised of the writ proceedings, the Lokayukta issued a show cause notice under Section 24(5) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 on 30.01.2026. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up before the Hon‟ble High Court on 04.02.2026, this Hon‟ble Court was pleased to allow the amendment
petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the said show cause notice, which was also reported in the media.
13. It is respectfully submitted that only after these developments did the respondent police suddenly initiate coercive action against the petitioner, without issuing any notice of appearance or complying with the mandatory safeguards under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023, clearly indicating that the impugned action is vitiated by malafides and appears to be actuated by extraneous and political considerations.
14. The allegations made against the petitioner are wholly baseless, inasmuch as the petitioner has, in fact, paid consideration exceeding 3.5 times the applicable guideline value for the subject property. In respect of Plot
„A‟, measuring 2,400 sq.ft., the guideline value was ₹9,60,000/-, whereas the actual consideration paid by the petitioner was ₹37,80,500/-. Similarly, in respect of Plot „B‟, measuring 3,000 sq.ft., the guideline value was ₹12,00,000/-, whereas the actual consideration paid by the petitioner was ₹40,00,000/-. Accordingly, the total consideration paid by the petitioner for both plots aggregates to ₹77,80,500/-, as against a cumulative guideline value of ₹21,60,000/-, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner has paid an amount far in excess of, and exceeding 3.5 times, the guideline value for the said property.
15. It is further submitted that the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Registration Department clearly evidences that the very same vendor, namely Visvas Promoters, had sold a similarly situated property as a “plot simpliciter”, without any construction, to a third party in June 2024 for a consideration comparable to that paid by the petitioner. The said sale transaction, reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate, demonstrates that the consideration paid by the petitioner was in line with prevailing market transactions and was not artificial or inflated. This contemporaneous sale by the same vendor, at a similar price and for an undeveloped plot, further reinforces that the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner are unfounded and contrary to the official registration records.
16. The aforesaid sequence of events, when read in conjunction with the absence of compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards, prima facie indicates that the impugned police action is vitiated by bias and mala fide exercise of power, and appears to be actuated by extraneous considerations, with the effect of intimidating and deterring the petitioner from pursuing lawful remedies against a sitting Minister.
17. The petitioner is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court, has never absconded, and there is no material to suggest any likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The respondent police have also failed to place any material demonstrating the necessity for custodial interrogation.
18. No material whatsoever has been placed before this Hon‟ble Court to demonstrate the recording of reasons justifying the arrest, the satisfaction of the statutory conditions warranting such arrest, or compliance with the mandatory arrest-before-remand safeguards
prescribed under law.
19. It is respectfully submitted that authorising remand in the face of the aforesaid statutory violations would amount to a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, resulting in an infringement of the petitioner‟s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India, and would amount to judicial endorsement of an illegal arrest.
20. For all the foregoing reasons, the remand sought by the respondent police in Crime No. 64 of 2024, registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, and is liable to be rejected.
21. That the applicant vehemently opposes the remand application on the following, among other, grounds:
A. Violation of mandatory arrest safeguards under BNSS, 2023
The alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are punishable with
imprisonment of less than seven years. Therefore, the arrest safeguards under Sections 35, 36 and 37 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are squarely attracted. In the present case, no notice of appearance was issued, no reasons necessitating arrest were recorded, and no material has been placed before this Hon‟ble Court to justify custodial
interrogation, rendering the arrest illegal.
B. Non-compliance with binding directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of BiharThe Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has categorically held that arrest is not automatic for offences punishable up to seven years and that Magistrates are duty-bound to refuse remand where statutory safeguards are not complied with. The principles laid down therein continue to apply with full force under the BNSS, 2023. In the present case, the mandatory checklist, recording of reasons, and judicial satisfaction are conspicuously absent.
C. Unexplained delay and absence of urgency
As per the FIR itself, the alleged occurrence is stated to be of 03.08.2023, whereas the FIR in Crime No. 64 of 2025 was registered only on 25.10.2025. Despite such prolonged delay, no immediate investigative action was taken. The absence of urgency completely negates any necessity for sudden arrest or remand.
D. Selective and retaliatory police action
Though the FIR was registered on 25.10.2025, no coercive action was taken initially. Only after the petitioner filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta on 05.12.2025, instituted a Writ Petition for Mandamus before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras on 23.01.2026, the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 24(5) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 on 30.01.2026, and the allowing of the amendment petition by the Hon‟ble High Court on 04.02.2026, did the respondent police suddenly initiate coercive action. The timing clearly indicates a colourable and retaliatory exercise of power.
E. Allegations in FIR prima facie unsustainable on admitted documents
The allegations relating to property consideration are demonstrably baseless. The petitioner has paid a total consideration of ₹77,80,500/- as against a cumulative guideline value of ₹21,60,000/-, thereby paying more than 3.5 times the guideline value. Such admitted figures completely negate any allegation of false consideration or cheating.
F. Encumbrance Certificate corroborates market value
The Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Registration Department shows that the same vendor, Visvas Promoters, sold a similarly situated plot without construction to a third party in June 2024 at a comparable consideration. This contemporaneous transaction by the same vendor confirms that the consideration paid by the petitioner was in line with prevailing market value and fully supported by official records.
G. No necessity for custodial interrogation The case is entirely document-based, revolving around registered sale deeds and public records. There is no allegation of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor
justified.
H. Mechanical remand would violate Articles 14 and 21 Authorising remand in the absence of statutory compliance would amount to mechanical detention, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

PRAYER
In the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to:
a)Reject the prayer for remand of the petitioner/accused in
Crime No. 64 of 2024, registered for offences under Sections 318(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as being illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the mandatory safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 and the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014) 8 SCC 273;
b) Direct the respondent police to strictly adhere to the statutory procedure prescribed under law, including issuance of notice of appearance, if so advised;
and
c) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.
Dated at Madurai 05th day of February 2026
District : MADURAI
BEFORE THE HON‟BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO. I AT MADURAI
Cr. No. 64 of 2025
(On the file of Respondent Police Station)

REMAND REJECTION
PETITION UNDER SECTION
187 BNSS, 2023

M/s.J.YESU SUBANATH
(1560/2018)
S.PRASANTH (284/20)
P.YOVAN (2005/2018)

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERý