Manikandaprabhu Duraisamy vs State Rep And Others

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of BNS 2023, in Crime No.12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who held 90% shares in the logistics company sold to the de facto complainant, had fraudulently inflated the company's accounts and falsely projected the achievement of the agreed milestones under the addendum agreement, thereby inducing the de facto complainant to pay the balance sale consideration. It is further alleged that the petitioner inflated the accounts to the tune of ₹34 crores, causing financial loss and additional tax liability to the de facto complainant. Hence, the present case.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.05.2026. It was contended that the petitioner had sold his company to the de facto complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.7.5 crores, out of which Rs.6 crores had already been paid, while the balance amount of Rs.1.5 crores was payable under an addendum agreement dated 27.01.2024 upon achievement of specified milestones. According to the petitioner, all the agreed milestones had been achieved and, though Rs.1 crore had been paid, the de facto complainant failed to pay the remaining Rs.50 lakhs. It was further submitted that, after the petitioner issued a legal notice seeking payment of the balance amount, the present complaint came to be lodged on the basis of allegations made by one Manjula regarding inflated accounts. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor, who submitted that the petitioner, holding 90% shares in the logistics company, had sold the same to the de facto complainant. Though an addendum agreement provided for payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.5 crores upon achievement of certain milestones, the petitioner allegedly inflated the company's accounts and falsely projected that the milestones had been achieved, thereby inducing the de facto complainant to make the payment. It was further contended that the petitioner had inflated the accounts to the tune of Rs.34 crores, resulting in financial loss and additional tax liability to the de facto complainant. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not returned the company laptops, vehicles and other records. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

The learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent, reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel for the intervenor and strongly opposed the bail application.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.05.2026. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- remains payable by the de facto complainant. The dispute pertains to the allegation of inflation of accounts to the tune of Rs.34 crores. Though the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently contended that the petitioner had inflated the accounts and thereby caused financial loss to the de facto complainant, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 11.05.2026, this Court is of the view that further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.