Moidheen vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.04.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crl.O.P. Nos.13285, 13312, 13302, 13305, 13294, 13293, 13290, 13287, 13295, 13296 & 13298 of 2026, the offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crl.O.P. Nos.13303 & 13299 of 2026 and the offences under Sectionso 316(2) and 318(4) @ 61(2)(a), 316(5), 318(5) and 316(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crl.O.P. No.13297 of 2026 in Crime Nos.4, 9, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 6, 3, 4, 11, 1, 2 & 5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that these matters relate to business transactions between the defacto complainant and the accused. The defacto complainant had advertised grocery products on the IndiaMART website. It is alleged that a Company named ABS Traders placed purchase orders for various grocery products from the defacto complainant; however, after delivery, only a partial payment was made. When the defacto complainant requested the remaining balance, the accused allegedly threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are totally eight accused in the case and that the petitioner has been arrayed as A7. According to the prosecution, A1 and A2 purchased raw materials from the de facto complainant. A portion of the sale consideration was allegedly paid by A1 and A2 to the de facto complainant out of the amounts received from A3. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, who was running a hotel business, had purchased raw materials, namely spices, from A1 and A2. It was contended that merely because the petitioner had purchased such materials from A1 and A2, he has been arrayed as an accused in the present case.

The learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused, Mr.A.Sikkandar, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.9684 of 2026 and batch, dated 21.04.2026. Since the petitioner stands on the same footing as the said co-accused, he is entitled to the benefit of parity and, therefore, prays for grant of bail.

The learned Government Advocate strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that A1 and A2 had allegedly cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,89,96,010/- in connection with the purchase of spices. He further submitted that only a paltry sum has been repaid and that a substantial amount still remains outstanding. The learned Government Advocate also contended that this is a modus operandi adopted by all the accused persons. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Government Advocate that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence and prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

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

According to the prosecution case, all the accused persons together had allegedly cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,89,96,010/-. No doubt, specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. However, it is seen that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 27.04.2026 and since then, he has been under incarceration. It is also relevant to note that the co-accused, Mr.A.Sikkandar, who was arrayed as A3, was enlarged on bail by this Court on 21.04.2026. It is the contention of the petitioner that he stands on the same footing as the said co-accused. While Mr.Sikkandar was implicated on the allegation that he had financed A1 and A2, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he had procured certain amounts for A1 and A2. Therefore, considering the fact that a similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail, and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 27.04.2026, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity and further incarceration of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, hence this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m and 05.30 p.m for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required;

[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.