High Court · 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 06.03.2025PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP(MD). No.2112 of 20251.D.Revathi2.R.Dhanasekaran... Petitioners/A1 & A2Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,rep by the Inspector of Police,Othakadai Police Station,Madurai District.Crime No.246 of 2024... Respondent /ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to release the petitioners on pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.246 of 2024pending on the file of the respondent-police.For Petitioners :Mr.J.KrishnakumarAdvocateFor Respondent:Mr.R.Meenakshi SundaramAdditional Public Prosecutor 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 30.01.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, prayingto grant an order of pre-arrest bail.2. The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent- police forthe offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, 1860, in CrimeNo.246 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant paid a sum ofRs.10,000/- to the accused persons as an advance for the purchase of property in PlotNo.142, Manikandan Nagar, Nelliyenthal Village. Upon verification of thedocuments for the said land while taking a loan, it was revealed that there was anencumbrance on the property. When the defacto complainant inquired about this, theaccused persons agreed to sell another plot, Plot No.90, for a sale consideration ofRs.12,50,000/-, after deducting the Rs.10,000/- already received as advance. Theaccused persons also received a sum of Rs.11,87,500/- from the defacto complainantin cash for the road lying on both sides of the land. Thereafter, on 31.03.2023, bytaking loan, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of DemandDraft (D.D.) to the accused persons. After arranging the remaining amount ofRs.4,40,000/-, on 03.04.2023, the defacto complainant called the accused persons by2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis phone to arrange for the registration of the said property in his favor. They statedthat the property had already been proposed to be sold to another party and that if hepaid an additional Rs.2,00,000/-, i.e., Rs.6,40,000/- [Rs.4,40,000/- + Rs.2,00,000/-],they would execute the sale deed in his favor. On 04.04.2023, the defacto complainantmet the accused persons and asked for the registration of the property. However,they threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the case.4. Mr.J.Krishnakukmar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that thepetitioners are innocent persons, and they have not committed any offence as allegedby the prosecution. He however submits that the petitioners have been falselyimplicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to abide byany conditions to be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to grant an orderof pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent-police submits that the petitioners cheatedthe defacto complainant and while asking the same, they also threatened him. Hefurther submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, they will causethreat to the defacto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposes to grant pre-arrest bailto the petitioners.6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. The petitioners and the defacto complainant had entered into sale agreementdated 14.11.2022 in respect of the subject property. According to the defactocomplainant, the sale price was fixed at Rs.12,50,000/- and the defacto complainantpaid a sum of Rs.10,001/- as advance, and Rs.8,00,000/-, and the defacto complainantalso paid a sum of Rs.11,87,500/- for the road lying on both sides of the land.Thereafter, some dispute arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant.It is noticed that there is no endorsement made in this regard in the agreement. Thelearned counsel for petitioners denied the receipt of the aforesaid amount. In view ofthe circumstances, this Court of the opinin that the dispute between the petitionersand the defacto complainant is purely a civil dispute and therefore, custodialinterrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in this case. Further, thepetitioners have permanent residence. Hence, there is less possibility of absconding.Considering the same, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.Accordingly, pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the followingconditions: (i) The petitioners shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrestor in the event of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur,within a period of 15 days from date on which the order copy is made ready, onexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)each along4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) tothe satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one ofidentity proofs to ensure their identity. (iii) The petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent police, daily at10.00 am., until further orders. (iv) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by apolice officer as and when required.(v) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threator promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade himfrom disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vi) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.(vii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission ofthe Court.(viii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the concerned Magistrate.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (ix) The petitioners shall not enter into the residence of the defacto complainantor his work place.(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate ordersagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions areimposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State ofKerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 06/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /03/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. RmkTO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+2 CC to M/s.J.KRISHNAKUMR, Advocate ( SR-2535[I] dated 07/03/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2112 of 2025 Date :06/03/2025NBF/GSV / SAR/ (21/03/2025) 7P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/20237/7