Ajithkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Reddiyarchatram

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.19918 of 2025 Ajithkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.265 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balamurugananthan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.N.Marivel PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.265 of 2025 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 police for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(5), 336 and 340(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.265 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, 1/6

seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is functioning as the Managing Director of M/s. Bhagavathy Farm Equipments, Dindigul. The petitioner who was employed as Manager and Cashier of the Bhagavathy Farm Equipments misappropriated company funds by collecting amounts from customers and crediting them into his personal bank account instead of the company's account. The fraud came into light when a customer named Nagakannan sent Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner's personal account for a tractor part and the transaction was not reflected in the company's book. When questioned, the petitioner allegedly produced a forged SBI bank statement and failed to account for several similar transaction. Further inquiries revealed that the petitioner had diverted large sums of company money for personal use for buying vehicles, jewelry and opening a shop for his wife. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the 2/6

petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature.

5.According to the prosecution, initially, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken Rs.38,00,000/-. But the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's account is used by the owner in order to avoid the GST. Today, the prosecution submitted that the petitioner has submitted records for Rs. 20,00,000/-, but initial amount is increased to Rs.65,00,000/-.

6. Taking into consideration of the fact that the accounts is tallying for Rs.20,00,000/- and since the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed in the interim anticipatory bail regularly, the interim anticipatory bail already granted is made absolute and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 3/6

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, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. [c]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d]the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 is 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].

[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under 4/6

Section 269 of BNS.

16.02.2026 TMG (1/2) TO 1.The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathiram.

Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J TMG

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19918 of 2025 Date : 16.02.2026 (1/2) 6/6