S. Radhakrishnan vs The State of Tamilnadu
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011546902026}
S. Radhakrishnan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by
The Assistant commissioner of Police,
Srirangam,
Trichirappalli City.
2. The State of Tamilnadu rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Fort Police Station,
Tiruchirappalli City.
Crime No.360/2026.
3. K.Jeyaprakash Narayanan
4. P.Palanichamy
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Appeal filed under Section 14(2) oif SC/ST Act, to set
aside the judgement dated 16.10.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.4479 of 2026
on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge
(PCR), Tiruchirappalli, and to allow the above Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
learned Senior Counsel for M/s M/s. Veera Associates
For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar,
Govt. Advocate (Crl Side) for R1 and R2
: Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R3 & R4
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 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.
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
(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.
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
DSS
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
13-11-2026
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 1316 of 2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:02:21 pm )