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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 11970 of 2026 1.Manikandan 2.Jegan

...Petitioners

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.11 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth 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. 11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, 1/6

seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners approached the defacto complainant in the year 2022 and proposed him a business idea such as doing a dealership of selling furniture. The defacto complainant accepted the proposal and paid Rs.21,88,000/- for procuring furniture and he had received only furniture worth about Rs.3,36,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners were received the amount for transporting the furniture things to the defacto complainant. The same was transported to him. Except that there is no transactions between them. Due to the previous business motive, this false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. 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 petitioners cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.21,88,000/-. The petitioners 2/6

have no previous cases. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioners, even according to the prosecution the allegations seems to be the business transactions and for the occurrence happened in the year 2022 to 2024, the complaint has been lodged in the year 2026 belatedly and FIR has been registered, the petitioners have no previous case, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 No.II, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police 3/6

daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for interrogation:

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 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 BNS.

4/6

(P D B J) 23.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.11 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11970 of 2026 Date : 23.06.2026 6/6