✦ High Court of India · 12 Sep 2025

Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 12 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

12 Sep 2025

Bench

T.V.THAMILSELVI

Length

1,747 words

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code §229A The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984

CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025CRL OP No. 16612 of 2025V.PriyadharshiniW/O Vijay, No.6/1, Play Ground, 1st Street, Thayyankulam, Choolai, Chennai- 600112Petitioner(s)VsThe State Rep By, The Inspector of PoliceCBCID, Chennai. Crime No.05 of 2025.Respondent(s)CRL OP No. 17165 of 2025A S ThirumaranS/o.A.Srinivasan, No.38, K M Garden, 7th street, Pettalam, Perambur Baracks, Chennai - 600012.Petitioner(s)VsThe State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,CBCID, Chennai Crime No.05 of 2025Respondent(s)3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025CRL OP No. 20286 of 20251. P JeevanadamS/o. Perumal,No.7/9,Sasthri Nagar, 2nd Street,Ennore, Kattivakkam P.O.,Ennore Thermal Station,Tiruvallur-600 057.2.Saranraj,S/o, Anandhababu,No.41A (3),Priyapalayathamman kovil West Street,Moolakkothalam, Washermenpet,Chennai- 600 0213.M Senthil KumarS/o, Munusamy, No.7/9, 3rd Street, Kumarasamy Rajapuram Road, Pulianthope, PeramburBarracks,Chennai 6000124.S. KarthikS/o,K.Sankar, No. 13A, Gandhi Nagar, Kodungaiyur,Chennai 600 118.Petitioner(s)VsThe State rep.by The Inspector of Police,Metro-1 CBCID Police Station, ChennaiRespondent(s)4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025CRL OP No. 20287 of 20251. M.MukeshS/o.Murugan, No.17, Periya Palaiayathamman 4th Street, Moolakkothalam, Washermenpet, Chennai.2.Vinoth KumarS/o.Elumalai, No.905, 19th Block K P Park. Pilianthope, Perambur Barracks, Chennai.3.Suriya PrakashS/o, Murugesan, No.30, Basin Road, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.4.K.Karumari Vinayaga KumaranS/o.Kalyanam, No.1/30B, Nethaji Nagar, 3rd Street, Chennai, Thiruvottiyur, Tiruvallur 600 019.Petitioner(s)VsThe State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CBCID Metro-I, Chennai. Crime NO.05 of 2025Respondent(s)5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025CRL OP No. 16607 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.CRL OP No. 16609 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.CRL OP No. 16611 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.CRL OP No. 16612 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.CRL OP No. 17165 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.CRL OP No. 20286 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the Petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025CRL OP No. 20287 of 2025PRAYERTo enlarge the Petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.In all CRL OPsFor Petitioner(s):Mr.K.Balasubramanian for Mr.K RahulFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.Udayakumar,Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)For Intervenor(s):Mr.P.Rajkumar COMMON ORDERThe petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1),115, 332(c), 324(4), 351(2), 269(b), and subsequently altered into 115, 332(c), 324(4), 351(3), 269(b), 191(3), 33, 331(1), 304 of BNS, 2023 and Sec.3 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 in Crime No.05 of 2025 on the file of respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioners along with other accused have said to have trespassed into the house of defacto complainant and said to have attempted to attack her, damaged back door of her house and also thrown out some waste bottles in the house with an 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025intention to harass her, assaulted her and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint was lodged against the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are scavengers and they have been falsely implicated in this case as if they entered into house of defacto complainant, assaulted her, attempted to attack her and also thrown out waste bottles in her house in order to harass her, but in fact, they are innocent persons and they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would also submit that they are no way connected with the occurrence and they will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. The learned counsel for intervenor raised objections stating that on that day, gang of people including the petitioners entered into house of defacto complainant and thrown waste bottles inside the house and damaged the house articles. To that effect, he produced photographs. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these petitions. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally 21 accused involved in this case and some of them were released on bail and A1 was granted anticipatory bail. So far, some 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025of accused were released on bail and some of them were granted anticipatory bail. He would also submit that if they are released on anticipatory bail, they will tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. The petitioners have contended that already bail was granted to these petitioners with a limited condition to get apology from the defacto complainant. Accordingly, they went to house of defacto complainant, but she is not available, for which they have produced some photographs showing that they went to house of defacto complainant, but as on date, the defacto complainant is not available. According to the prosecution also, the defacto complainant is not available in the house. Furthermore, on seeing the facts, some of them released on bail and A1 granted anticipatory bail. So far, some of the accused were released on anticipatory bail. According to the intervenor, she is mother of one Shavukku Shankar and there was a ransom on that day with some political motive. The complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant stating that on that day, all the petitioners along with others entered into house and caused damages. But, according to the petitioners, there was unwanted, unnecessary and derogatory commands made in the youtube by the defacto complainant's son, but they were not concerned with that and they were falsely implicated in this case. Already they were granted bail with certain condition, 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025but due to non-availability of defacto complainant, they were not able to comply the condition. Already co-accused was also granted anticipatory bail. Considering that and considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.6.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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned CCB and CBCID Metro Cases Court at Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, totally a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand only) into the credit of Crime No.5 of 2025 and on such deposit, the defacto complainant is permitted to withdraw the the amount on filing undertaking affidavit and on production of proper identification and acknowledgement and the petitioners shall also execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each, in which, one surety must be a blood surety, 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 which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025[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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 for the period of three months.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.Consequently, all the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 12-09-202511/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NorppTo1. CCB and CBCID Metro Cases Court at Egmore, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 of 2025T.V.THAMILSELVI J.rppCRL OP Nos. 16607, 16609, 16611, 16612, 17165, 20286 & 20287 OF 202512-09-202513/13

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Indian Penal Code