Manoharan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Cciw Madurai Rural
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10801 of 2026 Manoharan
...Petitioner
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCIW Madurai Rural Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.02 of 2021)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 02 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.05.2026, for the offences punishable under and Sections 406, 409, 464, 468, 471, 477(A), 420 and 34 of IPC, in Crime No.02 of 2021 on the 1/7
file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Madurai, lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 26.07.2021, it is alleged in the complaint that during the period of 2018-2021, there was a misappropriation of funds at A-2982 Pallapatti Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Madurai, later it was brought to the knowledge of the higher officials that there was a large scale of misappropriation and violation in dealing the funds of Co-operative Society. Immediately, an inspection was conducted through which they came to know that the then Secretary one Subramanian, other officials Ramasamy, Parameshwaran and Balaji had caused wrongful loss and misappropriated to the tune of Rs.1,34,38,777/- by way of creating forged documents and false signatures and thereby sanctioned loan / agricultural loan in the name of the deceased members. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner's name was not found in the FIR. The FIR has been registered only against four persons. The alleged occurrence was happened from the year 2018. The FIR has been 2/7
registered on 2021. After the subsequent enquiry conducted in the year 2025 only, recommendation was made by the Deputy Registrar to the Superintendent, Crime Branch, Chennai dated 27.05.2025. Based on the above said recommendation only the petitioner was arrested. On the said period the petitioner was only served as a President and not have any administrative control over the day today affairs of the Society. The amounts were also sanctioned pursuant to the resolution passed in the council meeting. This petitioner was arrayed as an accused after 6 years of the registration of the FIR and arrested. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The petitioner is the President of the Co-operative Society. All the accused persons cheated totally Rs.1,34,38,777/-. They created loan accounts for the dead persons. The petitioner has no previous case. In further investigation only the involvement of the petitioner came to know. Hence, he was implicated in this case and arrested. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on 3/7
record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the alleged occurrence took place from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2018, further the FIR has been registered on 26.07.2021, by this time investigation might to have been completed, the co-accused have been released on bail, the material documents were seized by the prosecution, even according to the prosecution the offences are borne out of the records, no scope to tamper the evidence and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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 No.III, Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders:
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the 4/7
commission of which he/she is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [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 BNS.
(P D B J) 11.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai.
5/7
2.The Inspector of Police, CCIW Madurai Rural Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.02 of 2021) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Melur, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10801 of 2026 Date : 11.06.2026 7/7