High Court · 2025

CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 30/04/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 20251. Pethanan2. Jeyasuriya3. Ranjithkumar ... Petitioners/A3, A4 & A7 Vs.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by The Inspector of Police,Sedapatti Police Station,Madurai District.Crime No.44 of 2025 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.C.Susikumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 20231/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 2025PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.44 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 28.04.2025under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grantan order of bail. 2. The petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 were arrested and remanded tojudicial custody on 04.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(1), 118(1), and 109(1)of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 andSections 7 and 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959, in Crime No.44 of 2025 on the file of therespondent-police. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.04.2025, at about 10.30 p.m., while thedefacto complainant along with his relatives were standing near Deivam Tea Stall atSedapatti Village, the petitioners along with other accused persons brutallyassaulted the defacto complainant and his relatives and caused injuries to them.Hence, the case.4. Mr.C.Susi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitsthat the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecutionand that a false case has been foisted against them. He further submits that, in fact,2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 2025the defacto complainant and his relatives brutally assaulted the petitioners, due towhich they sustained injuries and, therefore, lodged a counter case in Crime No. 45of 2025. He further submits that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since04.04.2025 and are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by thisCourt. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the defacto complainantsustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital on 03.04.2025 and discharged on09.04.2025. He further submits that, apart from the defacto complainant, two others,i.e., the relatives of the de facto complainant, also sustained injuries. He furthersubmits that there is no previous case pending against the first petitioner, oneprevious case is pending against the second petitioner, and two previous cases arepending against the third petitioner. He further submits that the investigation ispending, and therefore, at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they mayabscond, thereby causing delay in the investigation proceedings and may also causethreat to the defacto complainant, victims, and witnesses. Accordingly, hevehemently opposes to grant bail to the petitioners.6. Heard on both sides and perused the records.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 20257. The petitioners were arrested and have been in judicial custody since04.04.2025. In view of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners and thefact that a counter case in Crime No.45 of 2025 has also been registered against thedefacto complainant and his relatives, and taking note of the fact that the defactocomplainant was discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the opinion thatfurther custody of the petitioners is not necessary for the investigating agency in thiscase. Further, the petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in thesociety, and hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the above,and also considering the period of incarceration, and with a view to give one moreopportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves, this Court is inclined to grantbail to the petitioners, however, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, bail isgranted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousandonly) 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, Peraiyur;(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, Peraiyur, shall obtain a copy of anyone of identity proofs to ensure their identity;4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 2025(iii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the learned Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur;(iv) The petitioners shall stay at Thiruchengode and shall appear and signbefore the Inspector of Police, Tiruchencode Rural Police Station, Tiruchencode,daily at 09.00 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., until further orders; (v) The petitioners shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bondto be executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;(vi) 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;(vii) 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 ortamper with the evidence;(viii) The petitioners shall not cause any threat to the defacto complainant,other victims and witnesses and shall also not try to contact the defacto complainantand other victims either directly or through any electronic mode;(ix) The petitioners shall not enter into the house of the defacto complainantand his workplace; and 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 2025(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate, Peraiyur, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner inaccordance 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/- 30/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TSG To1. The Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District.3. The Inspector of Police, Tiruchencode Rural Police Station, Tiruchencode.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.8070 of 20255. The Officer-in-Charge, Sub Jail, Usilampatti.6. The Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District.7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8070 of 2025 Date :30/04/2025 MK/SAR /02.05.2025 7P/8C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7