Manoharan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.05.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Manoharan
...Petitioner/Accused -1
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Anjugramam Police Station, Kanyakumari.
(Crime No. 216 of 2025 )
...Respondent
For Petitioner : M/s.Gayathri Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 216 of 2025 on the file of the 1/7
respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No. 216 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the Secretary of the All India Private School Association. The petitioner and other accused assured the defacto complainant that he could obtain CBSC affiliation to the school which is running by the defacto complainant. Believing their false promise, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the petitioner neither obtained affiliation nor returned the amount. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 2/7
the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has no direct involvement in the alleged occurrence. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (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 420 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No. 216 of 2025. 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 petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3/7
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute 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 Judicial Magistrate-III, Nagercoil, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on the first day of every English Calender month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 4/7
investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(R V J) 21.05.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-III, Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police, Anjugramam Police Station, Kanyakumari.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9749 of 2026 Date : 21.05.2026 7/7