High Court · 2025

CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 18.03.2025PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 2025Mohamed Abdul Vahab... Petitioner / Accused No.7Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,Chatrakudi Police Station,Ramanathapuram District.(Crime No.51 of 2024)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant pre-arrest bail to thepetitioner in Crime No.51 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramamoorthi, Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,Additional Public ProsecutorFor Intervener:Mr.S.Vashik Ali,Advocate.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 24.02.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, prayingto grant an order of pre-arrest bail.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 20252. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent- police forthe offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC, in CrimeNo.51 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons colluded togetherand cheated the defacto complainant by forging and creating the documents asAccused No.1 is only the owner of the property, even though there are 10 legal heirsavailable. Hence, the complaint.4. This is the sixth petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. The earlierbail application in Crl.O.P(MD).No.21897 of 2024 was dismissed on 19.12.2024 onthe ground that there is no change in circumstances. The relevant portions areextracted hereunder:“4.The change in circumstances that is submitted by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that the second accused was grantedanticipatory bail by the District Court. The other circumstance is that thedefacto complainant and others have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.140 of2024 and in that suit, A1 and A6 alone have been added as defendantsand this petitioner has not been added as defendant. 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusedthe materials placed on record.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 20256.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is a documentwriter. Therefore, there is no need to add the name of the petitioner inthe civil Suit that was filed by the defacto complainant along with others.It is also seen from the records that the anticipatory bail application filedby the second accused was earlier dismissed by this Court by an orderdated 21.11.2024. Thereafter, the second accused seems to have movedthe Sessions Court and obtained anticipatory bail. In view of the same,this Court passed an order dated 12.12.2024 and the same is extractedhereunder: “This anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner on theground that A2 was granted anticipatory bail by the learned PrincipalSessions Judge,Ramanathapuram in Crl.M.P.No.4905 of 2024 by anorder dated 29.11.2024. 2. A2 had earlier filed anticipatory bail petition in Crl.OP(MD).No.20219 of 2024 and the said petition was dismissed by an orderdated 21.11.2024 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- “When this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bailto the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersought for permission to withdraw this Criminal Original Petition.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 20252. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition standsdismissed as withdrawn.” Thereafter, A2 had gone before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Ramanatharpurm and filed an anticipatory bail petition and thelearned Principal Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to A2. 3. It is now too well settled that once a bail or an anticipatorybail is disposed either on merits or as withdrawn by the High Court,subsequent petition can be filed only before the High Court and itcannot be entertained by the Court below. Useful reference can bemade to the judgment of this Court in T.Kokila Devi -vsS.Thenmurugan and Ors reported in 2019 (2) LW (Crl) 738. 4. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the learnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram to submit a report beforethis Court as to how the anticipatory bail petition filed by A2 wasentertained by the Sessions Court when the earlier anticipatory bailpetition filed by A2 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on21.11.2024. The report shall reach this Court on or before 18.12.2024.5. Post this case on 19.12.2024.” 7. A report has been received from the Principal District Judge,4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 2025Ramanathapuram. The learned Sessions Judge has stated that thejudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Vs. The State ofMaharastra in Crl.Appeal No.1221 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 was reliedupon and that the learned Judge was not aware of the order passed bythis Court. The learned Sessions Judge has also stated that he willhenceforth follow the directions issued by this Court scrupulously. 8. In the considered view of this Court, the anticipatory bailgranted in favour of the second respondent by the Sessions Court cannotbe taken as a ground by the petitioner to seek for anticipatory bail. Eventhough the explanation given by the learned Principal District Judge,Ramanathapuram is not satisfactory, considering the reasons given, thisCourt does not want to further precipitate this matter. This Court onlyhopes that the District Judiciary will follow the judgment of this Courtscrupulously in future. 9.This Court does not find any change in circumstances.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.”5. Mr.B.Ramamoorthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thepetitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by theprosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 2025this case. He however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditionsimposed by this Court and accordingly, he prays for the grant of pre-arrest bail. 6. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the petitioner is theDocument Writer. He further submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as A7. Hetherefore contends that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, he may abscondand tamper the evidence. Therefore, he submits that custodial interrogation of thepetitioner is necessary in this case to unearth the truth. Accordingly, he prays todismiss this Criminal Original Petition.7. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 8. The petitioner has permanent residence. Hence, there is less possibility ofabsconding. Considering the same and also considering the facts and circumstancesof the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and witha view to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grantpre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, pre-arrest bail is granted to thepetitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrestor in the event of his surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakkudi,within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, on6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 2025executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakkudi.(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 petitioner shall appear and sign before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Paramakkudi daily at 10.00 a.m. on all working days until furtherorders. (iv) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a policeofficer as and when required.(v) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall also not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.(vii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission ofthe Court.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 2025(viii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile numberto the concerned Magistrate.(ix) 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 petitioner 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. Stateof Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 18.03.2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. pal To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakkudi .2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ramanathapuram District.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3595 of 20253.The Inspector of Police, Chatrakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Order made in CRL OP(MD) No.3595 of 2025 18.03.2025 SL(01.04.2025)/ 9P/ 5CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.9/9