Balamurugan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Balamurugan 2.Utchimahuli

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Thoothukudi District (Crime No.5 of 2026)

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Pozhilan For Intervenor : Mr.M.Muthu Geethaiyan For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7

The petitioners/A2 and A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS in Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The defacto complainant in this case is the Internal Superintendent of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil at Tirunchendur. The case of the prosecution is that A1 who is the employee of the temple was entrusted with duties relating to the issuance of Rs.100 Maniyadi Special Dharshan tickets, through the temple's computerized ticket sale reports, the temple administration noticed repeated entries marked as 'Reprint' in the ticketing records. Further internal enquiry was ordered and during enquiry it was revealed that the A1 had misused the Integrated Temple Management System with the help of other accused by exploiting the facility available for printing the duplicate tickets, thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.25,24,100/- Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioners. He would further submit that no materials have been produced by the 2/7

prosecution to implicate the petitioner as an accused. He would further submit that these petitioners are only staff and the only allegation against these petitioners is that they failed to verify and compare the tickets issued through the computer system with the collections received, therefore prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the A1 is the main accused in this case and she along with other accused have misappropriated a sum of Rs.26 lakhs by reprinting the tickets. Huge amount involved in this case and public money has been swindled by the accused persons. There are prima facie materials available as against the petitioners and the offences are grave in nature, thereby objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the amount involved in this case is huge and and investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature , thereby strongly objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/7

7.

Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offences and considering the fact these petitioner are only staff who have to remit the amount entrusted to them and they have no role with A1 and whatever amount collected by A1 has to be given to these petitioner and they have to remit the amount entrusted to them and apart from that there is no role played by these petitioners and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners and the allegations are levelled only as against A1, even as per the prosecution also the offences are borne out of records thereby no scope to tamper the evidence and also considering all other factors, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, 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 No.

IV, Thoothukudi on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

4/7

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m., for a period of four weeks.

[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) 25.06.2026 aav 5/7

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi

2. The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10128 of 2026 Date : 25.06.2026 7/7