High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 17/02/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 20251. Kannan @ Kannan Esakki,S/o Sankaralingam, No. 10 Kannarkovil Mela Street, Kalakkad, Tirunelveli District.2. Manikandan,S/o Sankaralingam, No. 10 Kannarkovil Mela Street, Kalakkad, Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioners/A1 & A2 VsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kalakkad Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No. 74/2025. ... Respondent/Complainant1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 2025 For Petitioners : Mr.C.Saravanakumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.74 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 13.02.2025under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant bail.2. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 were arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 28.01.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 191(2) and329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 3(1) of Tamil NaduPublic Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (TNPPDL) Act andsubsequently altered into Section 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023and Section 3(1)of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) act,1992 (TNPPDL) Act, in Crime No.74 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 20253. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the defactocomplainant’s brother’s sons. The defacto complainant constructed three shops onproperty jointly owned by the petitioners and the defacto complainant. The defactocomplainant leased out two of the shops to individuals for running a tea shop and awatch shop. The defacto complainant is also running a shop. The petitioners own theland behind the shops and requested the defacto complainant to provide a pathwayto access their land. However, the defacto complainant refused their request.Subsequently, the petitioners instructed the owners of the tea shop and the watchshop to vacate the premises, stating that they intended to demolish the shops. Inresponse, the petitioners filed a complaint, which is currently under investigation. Onaccount of this motive, when the defacto complainant arrived at the spot on28.01.2025, at about 06:30 a.m., he noticed that the petitioners had demolished theshop using a JCB vehicle during the night hours. Hence, the complaint.4. Mr.C.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitsthat the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution anddue to the land dispute, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hefurther submits that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 28.01.2025 andthat they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, heprays for granting bail to the petitioners. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 20255. Per contra, Mr.R. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-police, submits that the petitioners and the defactocomplainant are close relatives. He further submits that the alleged JCB vehicle hasbeen recovered from the petitioners herein. He further submits that the value of thedamages is worth about Rs.50,000/-. He vehemently opposes the grant of bail to thepetitioners.6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.7. The petitioners were arrested and have been in judicial custody since28.01.2025. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society.Hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the same and alsoconsidering fact that the petitioners are first offenders and there was property disputebetween the petitioners and the defacto complainant and with a view to give anopportunity to reform themselves, this Court is inclined to grant bail to thepetitioners, however, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted to thepetitioners subject to the following conditions:4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 2025(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for 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, Nanguneri;(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, Nanguneri, shall obtain a copy ofany one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;(iii) The petitioners shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond tobe executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of whichthey are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;(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 themfrom disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with theevidence;5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 2025(vi) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri;(vii) The petitioners jointly shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand only) to the credit of the Crime No.74 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. In turn, the learned JudicialMagistrate shall deposit the said amount in a nationalized Bank initially for a periodof one year and renew them periodically until the final order / judgment is passed inthe case in Crime No.74 of 2025.(viii) the petitioners shall appear and sign before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Nanguneri, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;(ix) The petitioners shall not enter into the house and the workplace of thedefacto complainant; and(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate, Nanguneri is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 2025accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laiddown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC283].8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 17/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / 17/02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TSGTO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATENANGUNERI2 DO-THROUGH :THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,SUB JAIL, NANGUNERI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAKKAD POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.2914 of 20255 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2914 of 2025 Date :17/02/2025 SS/SAR- /17/02/2025/ 8P/6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8