High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.02.2025CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.O.P.No.243 of 2025Arjunan...Petitioner/Accused Vs.1.The Deputy Superintendent of PoliceErode, Erode District2.State rep. byInspector of PoliceBangalapudur Police StationErode District(Crime No.315 of 2024)3.Nataraj ...RespondentsCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in crime No.315 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioner:Mr.M.R. ElavarasanFor RR1 and 2:Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph SelvamGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side)For R3:Mr.S.Kathiravan Legal Aid Counsel1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025O R D E RThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 303(2), 326, 125 of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(b)(1)(a)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, Section 3(3) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 altered to under Sections 105, 303(2), 326, 125 of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(b)(1)(a)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, Section 3(3) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Crime No.315 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 and A-2 are running a quarry without license, in which an explosion took place, caused death of two persons and later, the investigation revealed that the deceased belonged to SC community and hence, the case which was originally registered for the offences under Sections 105, 303(2), 326, 125 of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(b)(1)(a)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, Section 3(3) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025& Regulation) Act, 1957 was altered to under Sections 105, 303(2), 326, 125 of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 9(b)(1)(a)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, Section 3(3) and 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1992, Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “SC/ST Act). Hence, the case.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not run the quarry; that he has been implicated only on the confession of the co-accused; that the petitioner is running a shop dealing with explosive substances with a valid license; and that, he has not committed any offence under the SC/ST Act and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner and hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. Though the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant was served, none entered appearance on his behalf. Hence, this Court appointed Mr.S.Kathiravan, as legal aid counsel to represent the de facto complainant. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025petitioner had supplied explosives to A-1 and A-2 knowing well that they did not have license to run the quarry and therefore, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.7. Admittedly, the petitioner was not running the quarry in which the explosion took place. The only material connecting the petitioner with the sale of explosives, is the confession of the co-accused. In any case, the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out as against the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others [(2020)4 SCC 727] had held that where the allegations do not attract the offence under SC/ST Act, petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail on certain conditions. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 20258. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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 was made ready, before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (Special Court under SC&ST Atrocities Act), Erode, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 said Magistrate, on further condition that:[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and 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];[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.9. Before parting, the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai, is directed to pay the necessary fee to Mr.S.Kathiravan, Legal Aid Counsel, at the earliest.27.02.2025gya6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025To1.Principal District & Sessions Judge(Special Court under SC&ST Atrocities Act), Erode2.The Member SecretaryTamil Nadu State Legal Services AuthorityHigh Court Buildings, Chennai3.The Deputy Superintendent of PoliceErode, Erode District4.The Inspector of PoliceBangalapudur Police StationErode District5.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Madras7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.243 of 2025SUNDER MOHAN,J.gyaCrl.O.P.No.243 of 202527.02.20258/8