High Court · 2025

CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 28.03.2025PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 20251.Karthick @ Kandasamy2.Kalaiselvan3.Iyyappan... Petitioners / Accused Rank Not KnownVs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,Tirunelveli Town Police Station,Tirunelveli.(Crime No.69 of 2025)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant pre-arrest bail to thepetitioners in Crime No.69 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioners : Mr.D.Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent:Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,Additional Public ProsecutorFor Intervener:Mr.A.Subramaniyan,AdvocateORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 24.03.20251/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 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 for theoffences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) and 318(4) of BNS,2023, in Crime No.69 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2025, the defacto complainanttransferred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- through online to A1 for taking lease of hisproperty. Later, since she was not willing to take lease, she requested him to returnthe money. In response, A1 told her that he would pay interest on the amount.Subsequently, the defacto complainant gave him an additional sum of Rs.6,00,000/-under the pretense of receiving good returns. However, A1 did not pay any interest.When the defacto complainant demanded the return of the total amount ofRs.10,00,000/-. Instead of returning the money, on 12.03.2025, he threatened her withdire consequences. On 14.03.2025, A1 along with other accused persons is said tohave assaulted the defacto complainant and her husband. Thereafter, he threatenedher stating that he had created documents falsely showing that the defactocomplainant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from him and that she could take noaction against him. Distressed by this, the defacto complainant consumed pesticideand was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli. Hence, the case.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 20254. Mr.D.Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that thepetitioners are innocent persons and that they have not committed any offence asalleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hefurther submits that this is a case in counter case. He, however, submits that thepetitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hetherefore prays for grant of 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 accused personsassaulted the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hefurther submits that this is a case in counter. Therefore, he contends that, if pre-arrestbail is granted to the petitioners, they will cause threat to the defacto complainantand tamper with the evidence. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners isnecessary in this case. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal OriginalPetition.6. Mr.A.Subramaniyan, the learned counsel for the intervener submits that A1cheated a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and when the defacto complainant requested him toreturn the same, the accused persons assaulted her and threatened her with direconsequences. He further submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, hewill cause threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses. Hence, he prays to3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 2025dismiss the Criminal Original Petition.7. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 8. In view of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, this Court is ofthe view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in thiscase. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society andtherefore, there is less possibility for absconding. Considering the same and alsotaking into account of the fact that the petitioners are first offenders and with a viewto give an opportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves, this Court is inclinedto grant an order of pre-arrest bail 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 No.IV,Tirunelveli, within a period of 15 days from date on which the order copy is madeready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)each along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV,Tirunelveli.(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 2025Practice, 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 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, 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.(ix) The petitioners shall not enter into the defacto complainant's house or herworking 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 orders5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 2025against 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. Stateof Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 28/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / 30/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. pal To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tirunelveli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1. CC to M/S. VENKATESH.D Advocate SR.No.3692(I)DT.01.04.20256/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5617 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5617 of 2025 Date :28/03/2025PP/SAR. /02.05.2025/7P/6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from17/07/2023. 7/7