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

Facts

The petitioner, Ajithkumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 265 of 2025 registered by the Reddiyarchatram Police Station. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, while employed as Manager and Cashier at M/s. Bhagavathy Farm Equipments, misappropriated company funds by diverting customer payments to his personal bank account. This came to light when a customer's payment for a tractor part was not reflected in company books, and the petitioner allegedly produced a forged bank statement. The prosecution claimed large sums were diverted for personal use. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated and that his account was used by the owner to avoid GST. The disputed amount evolved during proceedings from an initial Rs. 38,00,000/- to Rs. 65,00,000/-, with the petitioner submitting records for Rs. 20,00,000/-.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The decision was based on the fact that the accounts tallied for Rs. 20,00,000/- and the petitioner had regularly complied with the conditions imposed during the interim anticipatory bail period. The Court reasoned that these factors warranted making the interim bail absolute. The ratio decidendi is that consistent compliance with interim bail conditions and a partial reconciliation of accounts can be grounds for granting anticipatory bail, even in cases involving serious allegations. The operative directions included the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, reporting to the police daily for two weeks, cooperating with the investigation, and not tampering with evidence or absconding. The Court also noted that if conditions were breached, the Magistrate could take action as if bail was granted by the Magistrate himself, citing P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023, considering the serious nature of the alleged offences under Sections 318, 316(5), 336, and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offence, seeking anticipatory bail. He also suggested that his account was used by the owner to evade GST. Respondent's arguments: The State contended that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature. The prosecution noted discrepancies in the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated, with the initial figure of Rs. 38,00,000/- increasing to Rs. 65,00,000/-, while the petitioner submitted records for Rs. 20,00,000/-.