Manikandan vs. The State Of Tamilnadu

Facts

The petitioner, Manikandan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 40 of 2025 registered by the District Crime Branch, Madurai. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as the sole accused, fraudulently obtained a loan from the State Bank of India using forged rental, GST, and Udyam Registration documents in the name of a first accused. The petitioner, a relative of the first accused, allegedly played a role in securing the loan under the Stand-Up India Scheme, causing financial loss to the bank. The FIR was registered pursuant to a direction from the Judicial Magistrate following an audit and complaints by the bank. The petitioner claimed innocence and no involvement in the alleged occurrence.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner's claim of innocence and lack of involvement, the absence of previous criminal antecedents, the significant delay between the date of occurrence (25.11.2021) and the registration of the case (24.10.2025), and the lack of effective steps taken by the police to secure the accused despite the case registration in 2025. The Court considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon arrest or appearance before the Judicial Magistrate within fifteen days, subject to executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, reporting to the respondent police every Saturday for four weeks, not committing similar offences, not absconding, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses. The Court also noted that a fresh FIR could be registered under Section 269 of BNS if the accused absconds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of fraud and financial loss to the bank. The petitioner argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated, with no involvement in the alleged occurrence. He sought anticipatory bail on these grounds. The State, represented by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the offence is grave in nature.