CRL A(MD)/1316/2026 of S. Radhakrishnan Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 13 November 2026

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, in Crl.M.P.No.4479 of 2026, dated 16.10.2026, declining bail to the appellant.

2. The case of the prosecution is that Front Line Hospital, situated at Tiruchirappalli, is run by a firm of three partners. The appellant, Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, and Dr. S. Vel Aravind each hold a 42.5% share. Dr. K. Jeyaprakash Narayanan, the de facto complainant, holds a 15% share. On 05.01.2026, the de facto complainant executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Palanichamy.

3. It is alleged that on 18.09.2026, at about 9.00 a.m., when the Power of Attorney holder, Mr.Palanichamy, was near the Anna Statue at Tiruchirappalli, Mr.Samy Ravi, Mr.Kumili Raja and a few others forcibly abducted him in a Honda City car bearing Registration No.45 BL 8105. He was allegedly threatened at knife point and taken to the Sub-Registrar's Office to transfer the 15% share in favour of the appellant. He was then allegedly taken to Hotel Ramyas, near the Central Bus Stand, Tiruchirappalli. At about 7.00 p.m., the Power of Attorney deed was allegedly snatched from him, and he was released.

4. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent Police five days after the occurrence, on 23.09.2026. An FIR in Crime No. 360 of 2026 was registered the same day for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(1), 311, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The printed FIR originally named only Mr.Samy Ravi and Mr. Kumili Raja. The name of the appellant was subsequently added manually.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were disputes among the partners of the firm and that O.S. Nos.29 of 2023, 30 of 2023 and 193 of 2023, which pertain to those partnership disputes, are pending before the Principal District Judge, Trichy. He submitted that the de facto complainant executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Palanichamy only after these disputes arose, and that the trouble began thereafter. According to him, the power agent started interfering in the administration of the hospital and attempted to trespass into it along with hooligans. Crime No. 68 of 2026 and a counter-case in Crime No. 69 of 2026 were registered in respect of that incident, and the appellant was shown as an accused in the latter. The appellant moved this Court to quash Crime No. 69 of 2026, and this Court stayed the investigation in that case.

6. The appellant further submitted that the parties subsequently settled the matter, and the de facto complainant agreed to transfer his 15% share to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1.25 crore. There was no written agreement. Pursuant to the settlement, the appellant transferred Rs. 1 crore to the power agent, Mr. Palanichamy, on 18.05.2026, leaving Rs. 25,00,000/- to be paid. The appellant fixed 18.09.2026 for the transfer of the share through the power agent and obtained a token from the Sub-Registrar's Office. He was ready with the balance amount, and the power agent had come to the Sub- Registrar's Office at Trichy for the transfer. At that point, the de facto complainant came to the office and stopped the power agent from executing the transfer deed. The power agent, for reasons best known to him, avoided executing the deed and moved away.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, five days later, a false complaint of abduction was registered against the appellant and others, alleging that they had abducted the power agent and threatened him to execute a transfer deed. He pointed out that the complaint dated 23.09.2026 made no allegation of caste abuse. Only on the next day did the Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, submit an alteration report alleging that the appellant and others had abducted Mr.

Palanichamy using his caste name. The appellant was then arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.09.2026.

8. The appellant also brought to the notice of this Court that, on the day of his arrest, Mr. Palanichamy lodged a similar complaint of abduction and threat at the Cantonment Police Station, Trichy City. It was registered as Crime No. 395 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 140(1), 296(b), 351(2) and 304 of the BNS, 2023, and it too contained no averment of caste abuse.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is only a civil dispute pending for the past three years, and that the de facto complainant, in order to gain an upper hand, lodged a false complaint through his power agent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He further submitted that the appellant is a 62-year-old practising doctor with deep roots in society and is not a flight risk, and that the only other case against him, Crime No. 69 of 2026, is also stayed by this Court, so that he has no previous bad antecedents. The appellant has been in custody for the past 50 days, and the counsel prayed for bail.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and for the victim, Mr. Palanichamy (respondents 3 and 4), filed a typed set of documents, including agreements. He submitted that the appellant had handed over the entire administration of the hospital to the de facto complainant and that it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 63 crores would be paid. He alleged that the appellant gave a few cheques as part payment, that those cheques were dishonoured, and that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been initiated against the appellant.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the State, submitted that the investigation was at a nascent stage. Eleven persons are accused in the case; A1 and A3 to A6 have been arrested, and six more are yet to be arrested. He further submitted that the persons named in the FIR are history-sheeter rowdies with several previous cases, and that the appellant induced them to abduct Mr. Palanichamy so that the shares could be transferred in his name. He added that the police had requested the call detail records (CDRs) of all the accused, and on these grounds he opposed bail.

12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials on record.

13. The appellant and another doctor each hold a 42.5% share in the firm that runs Front Line Hospital, Trichy, while the de facto complainant holds only 15%. It is admitted that O.S. Nos. 29 of 2023, 30 of 2023 and 193 of 2023 are still pending before the Principal

District Judge, Trichy. Against this background, the de facto complainant appointed Mr. Palanichamy as his power agent in respect of his 15% share. It is also admitted that problems arose in the administration of the hospital after the power agent began to interfere. He allegedly trespassed into the hospital along with hooligans, and a quarrel ensued. Crime No. 68 of 2026 and a counter-case in Crime No. 69 of 2026 were registered against the two sides. The appellant filed Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 6392 of 2026 to quash the FIR in Crime No. 69 of 2026, and this Court granted an interim stay of investigation in that case by order dated 01.04.2026.

14. It was after this that Rs. 1 crore was transferred from the appellant's account to the power agent, as the statement of account furnished by the appellant shows. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 admitted receipt of the amount but submitted that it had been repaid to the appellant. When this Court asked for proof, he produced a statement of account showing that the amount had been transferred to one Mr. Adaikala Arasu, who, on further inquiry, turned out to be the son of Mr. Palanichamy. Had the power agent wished to return the money, he should have returned it to the appellant himself. It is strange that the power agent, after receiving Rs. 1 crore, transferred it to his own son and now claims that it was paid to the appellant. It was further submitted across the Bar that Mr. Adaikala Arasu in turn transferred the amounts to A1 and A2. These transactions prima facie show that the appellant, having allegedly settled the matter for Rs. 1.25 crore, wanted the de facto complainant's share to be transferred to him, and that it was in pursuance of that arrangement that the power agent came to the Sub- Registrar's Office. When the de facto complainant intervened, the power agent moved away.

15. The complaint of abduction and threat was lodged only five days later. It was lodged not by the person allegedly abducted but by the de facto complainant, who had appointed Mr. Palanichamy as his power agent. It is admitted that this complaint contains no allegation of caste abuse. On the next day, 24.09.2026, the person allegedly abducted also lodged a complaint, which likewise speaks only of abduction and threat and says nothing about caste abuse. A comparison of the two complaints further shows that the abducted person did not mention the use of a knife, whereas the de facto complainant, who allegedly heard of the incident from the abducted person, stated that a knife was used.

16. Considering these inconsistencies in the version between the abducted person and the de facto complainant, the fact that the allegation of caste abuse was introduced only on 24.09.2026 by an

alteration report of the Inspector of Police, and the fact that the appellant's name was inserted manually in the printed FIR, this Court is of the prima facie view that the prosecution case requires close scrutiny at trial. These circumstances indicate that a civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal offence.

17. In addition, the appellant is a 62-year-old practising doctor with deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice. The only other case registered against him, Crime No. 69 of 2026, is itself stayed by this Court, so he has no previous bad antecedents. The apprehensions of the State that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the CDRs are awaited can be adequately met by the conditions imposed below. This Court is therefore inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant 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 First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impressions on the surety bond, and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.

(iii) The appellant shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m. on all working days until further orders.

(iv) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellant, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of bail before the trial Court, as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2005 SC 100.

(v) Any observation made in this appeal shall not affect the merits of the pending criminal cases or the pending civil litigations. 13-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DSS To

1. The First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.

3. The Assistant commissioner of Police, Srirangam, Trichirappalli City.

3. The Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

5. The Section Officer ( VR Section ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

D.LINGESWARAN, J. DSS CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026 13-11-2026