Manikanda Prabhu v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 61(2) r/w 318(4), 316(2), 316(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 344 of BNS, 2023 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 66C of Information Technology Act, 2000, in Crime No. RC 229 2026 A 0003 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is outsourcing employee of Pension and EDP Sections of VOC Port Authority, Tuticorin. He joined hands with the other accused, manipulated the SAP pension software system, and diverted the pension amount meant for genuine pensioners to the bank accounts belonging to their relatives, friends, and associates and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 4.51 crores to the Port Authority. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that prior to the registration of FIR, the petitioner was enquired by the Vigilance Department from the year 2024 and the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs.88 lakhs as per the demand made by the Department. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that total amount involved in this case is very high, and since the FIR was registered only on 08.06.2026, the investigation by CBI is at the initial stage. He further submitted that though several vigilance enquiries were conducted by the other departments, they have to start the investigation afresh. and if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood of tampering with the evidence. However, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent police only for serving investigation purpose. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have gone through the FIR and also the connected materials including a copy of the payment details furnished by the petitioner herein and it reveals that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.88 lakhs and majority of the allegation as against the senior officers of the concerned department. Hence, I am inclined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a period of 4 weeks, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned II Additional District & Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a week at 10.30 a.m. and also for other days required by the respondent.

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

29.06.2026 dss K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS To

1.The II Additional District & Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti -Corruption Branch, Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11835 of 2026 Date : 29/06/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Manikanda Prabhu ... Petitioner/Accused No.6 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti -Corruption Branch, Madurai, Madurai District. (Crime No. RC 229 2026 A 0003 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. RC 229 2026 A 0003 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Lenin K, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Special Public Prosecutor of CBI Cases