Shahul Hameed Mohamed Ismail v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Manapparai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Shahul Hameed Mohamed Ismail, 2.S.Abdullah 3.Sadam Hussain Ismail.
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Trichy.
(Crime No. 242 of 2026 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Malini Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.A.Vadivel PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- 1/7
For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 242 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 344, 324(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 242 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners 1 and 3 and the defacto complainant were the President, Secretary and Treasurer, respectively, of the renovation committee of the Waqf Board. The petitioners were misappropriated the funds of the Waqf Board. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed 2/7
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 344, 324(3) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 242 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioners have no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner misappropriated the funds of the Waqf Board allotted for renovation of jamad. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the 3/7
nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of managing the Waqf Board and even according to the prosecution, offences are borne out of records, thereby no scope in tampering the evidence and these petitioners are erstwhile committee members of the jamath and also no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a 4/7
period of eight weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 11.06.2026 apd (2/2) 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9704 of 2026 Date : 11.06.2026 (2/2) 7/7