High Court · 2025
Case Details
CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.04.2025CORAM:THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL O.P. No.8973 of 20251. P. Arasakandan S/o. Palanisamy Kandar2. P. Chitra Gopal D/o. Palanisamy Kandar3. P. Kamala W/o. Chandrasekar... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3VsState rep. by:-The Inspector of Police,Malayampalayam Police Station,Erode District. ... Respondent[Cr. No.22 of 2025]PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / Accused in Cr. No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioner : Mr. John Sathyan, Senior Counselfor Mr. P. VeeraraghavanFor Intervenor: Mr. S. Manurajfor Mr. H. RajasekarFor Respondent : Mr. S. Santhosh,Government Advocate[Criminal side]ORDER1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 61, 296(b), 316, 318 and 351(2) of B.N.S. in connection with the case in Cr. No.22 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the Poojari in Sri Samayapuram Mariyamman Temple, Karunkaradu, Nanjaikolanelli, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District, the 2nd petitioner is running a Prasadham Stall and the 3rd petitioner is running a flower shop near the said temple; that all of them made false representation to the defacto complainant that if she offers gold to the Deity, she would get rid of all her problems in her life; that believing the said representation, the defacto complainant on 11.02.2018, had handed over her Thali chain weighing 8 1/2 sovereigns to the 1st accused ; that the 1st petitioner had blessed the defacto complainant that her daughter, who was facing matrimonial problems, would soon get decree of divorce from the Court; that the defacto complainant's daughter also obtained the decree and thereafter, the defacto complainant's faith increased and subsequently, on 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025several occasions, the defacto complainant had handed over jewels worth about 158 1/2 sovereigns, 1.5 kgs of Silver and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- between the years 2018 and 2021; that thereafter, on 08.06.2024, the defacto complainant contacted the 1st petitioner and stated that none of her problems were solved and hence sought for return of gold jewels and articles; that the 1st petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and thus, committed aforesaid offences.3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations against the petitioners are false; that the defacto complainant had voluntarily made some offerings to the temple at the instance of the 1st accused; that there is no evidence to show that the defacto complainant had offered 158 1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels, 1.5 kgs of silver and cash of Rs.1 lakh; that the defacto complainant had only handed over 8 1/2 sovereigns of gold; that in order to show his bonafides, the petitioners are willing to deposit the 8.5 sovereigns of gold jewels within a period of 4 weeks and hence prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 20254. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor had vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and produced the transcripts of conversations made between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant, in which, the 1st petitioner had admitted the receipt of gold jewels from the defacto compalinant and submitted that considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and hence, sought for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case.6. Admittedly, the alleged occurrences are said to have taken place between the period of 2018 and 2021. This Court, at this stage, cannot assume that 158.5 sovereigns of gold jewels were handed over by the defacto complainant to the petitioners in the absence of any proof and 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025receipts. The petitioners have admitted the receipt of 8.5 sovereigns of gold jewels and to show their bonafides, they are willing to deposit 8.5 sovereigns of gold to the credit of Cr. No.22 of 2025 within a period of 4 weeks. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegations, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain conditions.7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on deposit of 8.5 sovereigns of gold to the credit of Cr. No.22 of 2025 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi and on such deposit, the defacto complainant is at liberty take the gold jewels by filing appropriate application and on further condition that the petitioners shall each execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stands dismissed and on further conditions that:[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a week i.e., on Monday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 02.04.2025[2/2]mjsTo1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3.The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Erode District.SUNDER MOHAN. J., mjs CRL O.P. No.8973 of 20257/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 202502.04.2025[2/2]8/8
CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 02.04.2025CORAM:THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL O.P. No.8973 of 20251. P. Arasakandan S/o. Palanisamy Kandar2. P. Chitra Gopal D/o. Palanisamy Kandar3. P. Kamala W/o. Chandrasekar... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3VsState rep. by:-The Inspector of Police,Malayampalayam Police Station,Erode District. ... Respondent[Cr. No.22 of 2025]PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / Accused in Cr. No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioner : Mr. John Sathyan, Senior Counselfor Mr. P. VeeraraghavanFor Intervenor: Mr. S. Manurajfor Mr. H. RajasekarFor Respondent : Mr. S. Santhosh,Government Advocate[Criminal side]ORDER1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 61, 296(b), 316, 318 and 351(2) of B.N.S. in connection with the case in Cr. No.22 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the Poojari in Sri Samayapuram Mariyamman Temple, Karunkaradu, Nanjaikolanelli, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District, the 2nd petitioner is running a Prasadham Stall and the 3rd petitioner is running a flower shop near the said temple; that all of them made false representation to the defacto complainant that if she offers gold to the Deity, she would get rid of all her problems in her life; that believing the said representation, the defacto complainant on 11.02.2018, had handed over her Thali chain weighing 8 1/2 sovereigns to the 1st accused ; that the 1st petitioner had blessed the defacto complainant that her daughter, who was facing matrimonial problems, would soon get decree of divorce from the Court; that the defacto complainant's daughter also obtained the decree and thereafter, the defacto complainant's faith increased and subsequently, on 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025several occasions, the defacto complainant had handed over jewels worth about 158 1/2 sovereigns, 1.5 kgs of Silver and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- between the years 2018 and 2021; that thereafter, on 08.06.2024, the defacto complainant contacted the 1st petitioner and stated that none of her problems were solved and hence sought for return of gold jewels and articles; that the 1st petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and thus, committed aforesaid offences.3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations against the petitioners are false; that the defacto complainant had voluntarily made some offerings to the temple at the instance of the 1st accused; that there is no evidence to show that the defacto complainant had offered 158 1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels, 1.5 kgs of silver and cash of Rs.1 lakh; that the defacto complainant had only handed over 8 1/2 sovereigns of gold; that in order to show his bonafides, the petitioners are willing to deposit the 8.5 sovereigns of gold jewels within a period of 4 weeks and hence prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 20254. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor had vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and produced the transcripts of conversations made between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant, in which, the 1st petitioner had admitted the receipt of gold jewels from the defacto compalinant and submitted that considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and hence, sought for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case.6. Admittedly, the alleged occurrences are said to have taken place between the period of 2018 and 2021. This Court, at this stage, cannot assume that 158.5 sovereigns of gold jewels were handed over by the defacto complainant to the petitioners in the absence of any proof and 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025receipts. The petitioners have admitted the receipt of 8.5 sovereigns of gold jewels and to show their bonafides, they are willing to deposit 8.5 sovereigns of gold to the credit of Cr. No.22 of 2025 within a period of 4 weeks. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegations, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain conditions.7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on deposit of 8.5 sovereigns of gold to the credit of Cr. No.22 of 2025 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi and on such deposit, the defacto complainant is at liberty take the gold jewels by filing appropriate application and on further condition that the petitioners shall each execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stands dismissed and on further conditions that:[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a week i.e., on Monday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 2025and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 02.04.2025[2/2]mjsTo1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.3.The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Erode District.SUNDER MOHAN. J., mjs CRL O.P. No.8973 of 20257/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.8973 of 202502.04.2025[2/2]8/8