Manikandan v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Manikandan Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep. by the Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, LFIW-1, Gamma 2, Vepery, Chennai.

Crime No.199/2024.

Respondent(s) PRAYER This petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused-9 in Bail in Crime No.199/2024 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Thanga Vadhana Balakrishnan For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinothraj GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) of IPC, 1860 in connection with Crime No.199 of 2024, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first and second accused impersonated a deceased person named Prema, created a forged settlement deed in favour of the fourth accused/Srinivasan, who then sold the property to the first accused. The first accused mortgaged the property with SBI, obtained a loan of Rs.1.50 crores, and absconded with the second accused. Out of the said amount, Rs.75,00,000/- has been transferred to the petitioner's account, who inturn transferred the funds to various other accounts. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submits that Pasupathy/A8 is the known to the petitioner through business transaction and as such, the amount was credited into the petitioner's

account on 13.02.2020 and on instruction of Pasupathy, on the same day itself, the petitioner transferred the funds to various other accounts (ie., 1.D.Ponpandian- Rs.8,00,000/-, 2. M.Durai Murugan-Rs.8,00,000/-,

3. S.Saravanan- Rs.8,00,000/-, 4. V.Harinath (A1)-Rs.2,40,000/-, 5. SJD Enterprises- Rs.6,00,000/-, 6. Danuj Enterprises -Rs.25,00,000/-, 7. Shapna (Wife of A1 Harinath)-Rs.15,00,000/- and 8. Harinath-Rs.2,60,000/-). The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is suffering incarceration from 15.05.2024, and now he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and the overtact as against the petitioner is that Srinivasan/A4 had transferred the part loan amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to the petitioner's account. Subsequently, based on the instruction of A8, petitioner disbursed the total amount to other 8 bank accounts. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the overtact as against the petitioner, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional CCB & CB CID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, on everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30-06-2025 Jai

Note :

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To 1.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, LFIW-1, Gamma 2, Vepery, Chennai.

2. The Additional CCB & CB CID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Puzhal Central Prison, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

jai CRL OP No. 17156 of 30-06-2025