Vinoth Kumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

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

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station Tenkasi.

(Crime No. 242 of 2026) 2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Tenkasi.

(Crime No.not known of 2026)

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/7

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 242 of 2026 on the file of the 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 318, 316(2), 61(2) (b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 242 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a lorry transport business under the name and style of 'MDR Traders' and the petitioner, who is the Area Manager (Marketting) of Reliance Mobility Limited, approached the defacto complainant and pitched the project, viz., 'Trans connect', which provides several discounts and loyalty schemes to the transport operators, due to which the defacto complainant enrolled as a customer and also he started to deposit funds and executed digital fuel payments. Later, he came to know that several misappropriations had taken place in his 'Trans-connect' portal wallet account and thereby, the petitioner misappropriated a sum 2/7

of Rs.30,67,684/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 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 this petitioner is only Marketting Area Manager of Madurai and separate personnel was appointed for Retail Outlet for the area of Sengottai and also main accused were arrested and they are still in custody. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

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, 316(2), 61(2)(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 242 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner has 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 petitioner. 3/7

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of business transaction and even according to the prosecution, this petitioner is only Marketting Area Manager of Madurai and separate personnel was appointed for Retail Outlet for the area of Sengottai and also main accused were arrested and they are still in custody and though the alleged occurrence took place on 03.12.2024 to 27.05.2026, FIR has been lodged only on 09.06.2026 and the petitioner has no previous 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum 4/7

of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 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. 5/7

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 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station Tenkasi.

3.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Tenkasi.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12400 of 2026 Date : 25.06.2026 7/7