High Court · 2025

CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 28.04.2025PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 20251.Joseph2.Shanthi... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,District Crime Branch,Tiruchirappalli,Tiruchirappalli District.(Crime No.2 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.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.For Petitioners :Mr.B.Deepak,AdvocateFor Respondent:Mr.S.S.Manoj,Government Advocate(Criminal Side)1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 27.03.2025under 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 420, 147, 294(b), 448 and 506(i) of IndianPenal Code, 1860, in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that one Joseph (A1), a native of KumarapattiVillage, Pudukkottai District, who had been well acquainted with the defactocomplainant since childhood, expressed his willingness to sell some properties.Thus, the total sale consideration for the properties fixed was Rs.1,83,00,000/-. Outof the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- was paid as advance in the presence ofone Mr.Pushparaj, and the balance was agreed to be paid within six months. Anunregistered sale agreement was executed between the parties on 12.08.2021 to thiseffect. It is further averred that upon expiry of the six-month period, Joseph failed tocome forward to execute the sale deed as agreed. When the defacto complainantapproached Joseph in this regard, he was instead directed to contact one Sivakumar,Parthasarathy, Pranav, Ganesh, Hareesh, Sakthivel, and Thangam for acompromise. It is further alleged that on 19.06.2024, Joseph, along with his wife and2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 2025seven others, trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant andunlawfully attempted to seize the original documents, which had been handed overby Joseph at the time of execution of the sale agreement. When the defactocomplainant resisted, Joseph allegedly threatened him and his wife with direconsequences. Hence, the case.4. Mr.B.Deepak, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that thepetitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged bythe prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He furthersubmits that the first Petitioner had borrowed a loan from the defacto complainanton 09.01.2019, and at the time of availing the said loan, he handed over the originalproperty documents and two cheque leaves drawn on Indian Bank, ViralimalaiBranch, as security. He further submits that the defacto complainant forged thesignature of the first Petitioner and created a fabricated, unregistered SaleAgreement. On the strength of the said forged document, the defacto complainantfiled a civil suit in O.S. No. 168 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Court,Pudukkottai. The first Petitioner has entered appearance in the said suit and filedhis written statement, and the matter is presently pending adjudication. He furthersubmits that, in order to defeat the lawful rights of the petitioners, the defactocomplainant has lodged the present criminal complaint, thereby giving a criminal3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 2025colour to what is purely a civil dispute. He also submits that the second petitioner,who is the wife of the first Petitioner, has absolutely no connection with the allegedtransaction between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, and she hasbeen falsely implicated in the complaint only with the intention to harass thepetitioners. He, however, submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by anyconditions to be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays for grant of pre-arrestbail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)appearing for the respondent-police, submits that there are totally nine accusedpersons in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A2. He furthersubmits that the accused persons had received a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- from thedefacto complainant. He also submits that the present dispute appears to be civil innature, arising out of a monetary transaction between the accused persons and thedefacto complainant. He further submits that are no previous cases against thepetitioners. He further submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioners,they will cause threat to the defacto complainant and tamper with the evidence andthat custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in this case to unearth thetruth. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 20256. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 7. Admittedly, the defacto complainant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 168 of 2023on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. Hence, the matter requires afull-fledged trial to unearth the truth. At this stage, it prima facie appears to be a civildispute between the parties. Further the petitioners have permanent residence anddeep roots in the society. Hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Consideringthe same and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature ofthe offence allegedly committed by the petitioners and the fact that the petitionersare first offenders and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners toreform themselves, this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to thepetitioners subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest or in theevent of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV,Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District, within a period of 15 days from the date onwhich the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each along with two sureties each for a likesum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 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 shall obtain a copy of any one ofidentity proof of each surety to ensure their identity.(iii) The first petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-policeweekly twice i.e., on every Monday and Friday at 10.00 a.m., until further orders.(iv) The second petitioner shall appear before the respondent-police as andwhen required for the interrogation.(v) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by apolice officer as and when required.(vi) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.(vii) The petitioners shall also not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.(viii) The petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of theCourt.(ix) The petitioners shall not enter into the house of the defacto complainant orhis work place.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 2025(x) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the concerned Magistrate.(xi) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate or Trial Judge, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate ordersagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditionsare imposed by them as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs.State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. Sd/-28/04/2025// True Copy // /05/2025Sub Assistant Registrar( CS-I / II / III / IV )Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.pal To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 20252.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli.3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.R.ILAYARAJA, Advocate ( SR-4966[I] dated 29/04/2025 )CRL.OP(MD). No.5969 of 202528.04.2025 KVL - ( 27.05.2025) 8P/ 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 8/8