High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 22/04/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 20251. Mohamed Subaideen2. Faruk Maraika ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 VsThe State of Tamilnadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,Keelakarai Police Station,Ramanathapuram District.Crime No. 209/2024 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.S.Sivaprakash, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS, 2023PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No. 209 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent-1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 2025Police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 07.02.2025under 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 alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351 (2) ofBNS, 2023 in Crime No.209 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running atravel agency at Keelakarai under the name and style of 'A1 Affiya Tours andTravels'. The petitioners herein are brothers and were both employed at the saidagency. While the defacto complainant went to Andhra Pradesh for his higherstudies, he entrusted the entire administration of the agency to the first petitioner.During this period, the petitioners allegedly misappropriated a sum ofRs.33,26,953/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundredand Fifty Three only) from various customers through G-Pay. On 26.09.2025, whenthe defacto complainant confronted the petitioners regarding the matter, theythreatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.4. Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 2025that the petitioners are innocent persons, and that they have not committed anyoffence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the first petitioner is apartner of the above said agency and due to some misunderstanding between thefirst petitioner and the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant made a falsecomplainant against the petitioners herein. He, however, submits that thepetitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.Accordingly, he prays to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that the petitioners havemisappropriated the amount of Rs.35,35,453/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs ThirtyFive Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Three only). He further submits that thepetitioner have returned back only a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs FiftyThousand only). Therefore, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition. 6. Mr.S.Sivaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the intervener / defactocomplainant submits that the petitioners have repaid only a sum of Rs.5,50,00/- andthe remaining amount has not yet been settled. He further submits that if pre-arrestbail is granted to the petitioners, they may be emboldened and cause threat to thedefacto complainant and the witnesses. Hence, he vehemently opposes to grantpre-arrest bail to the petitioners.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 20257. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 8. Since it appears that the petitioners and the defacto complainant wereinvolved in certain business transaction and had disputes arising therefrom, thisCourt is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not benecessary in this case. 9. Considering the above, and considering the nature of the offence allegedlycommitted by the petitioners, and the fact that the petitioners have permanentresidence and deep roots in the society, and therefore, there is less possibility ofabsconding, and also with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to reformthemselves, 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 theirarrest or in the event of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate I,Ramanathapuram, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copyis made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) each along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned JudicialMagistrate I, Ramanathapuram;4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 2025(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 I, Ramanathapuram, shall obtain acopy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;(iii) The petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent-police daily at09.00 a.m., 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,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vi) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, cause threat to the defactocomplainant / intervener and the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.(vii) The petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of theCourt.(viii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Ramanathapuram.(ix) The petitioners shall not enter into the defacto complainant's house or hiswork place.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 2025(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate I, Ramanathapuram or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to passappropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 22/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. tsgTO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I, RAMANATHAPURAM.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KEELAKARAI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRASHIGH COURT, MADURAI. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2619 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2619 of 2025 Date :22/04/2025 NBF/28.05.2025 7P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7