High Court · 2025

CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 09.05.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025Mariaraj,S/o.Savarimuthu... Petitioner / Accused No.1Vs.State of Tamil Nadu through,The Inspector of Police,Tallakulam Police Station,Madurai City.(Crime No.446 of 2025)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant bail to the petitioner inconnection with the Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj,Government Advocate(Criminal Side)For Intervener:Mr.T.K.Gopalan,Advocate1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 05.05.2025under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying togrant bail to the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file ofthe respondent-police.2. The petitioner / Accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 16.04.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 137(2) @ 305(a), 137(2), 111(3), 61(2) and 49 of BNS, 2023, in connection with the CrimeNo.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2025, the defacto complainantlodged a complaint stating that his wife's brother had gone missing from hisresidence on 06.04.2025. He further alleged that, in the meantime, certain importantdocuments, a hard disk, and CCTV were also found to be missing from thepremises. Initially, the respondent-police identified three individuals as accused inthe FIR and subsequently arrested nine other persons allegedly involved in theincident. The respondent-police further stated that there was a civil dispute betweenthe victim and the petitioner/Accused No.1 regarding property situated in Dindigul2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025and Kodaikanal. Based on this, the petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested that hehad conspired with the other accused persons in the kidnapping of the victim.Hence, the case.4. Mr.S.Sukumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that thepetitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence asalleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the civil dispute between theparties has been ongoing for the past 10 years. Even according to the CCTV footage,the victim is seen voluntarily accompanying the alleged persons, and there appearsto be no use of force or coercion against him. Furthermore, there is no previous casepending against the petitioner, and he has been in judicial custody since 15.04.2025.He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditionsthat may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed to grant bail to thepetitioner.5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)appearing for the respondent-police, submitted that the FIR was initially registeredagainst three unknown persons. However, during the course of investigation, it wasrevealed that Accused Nos.1 to 12 were involved in the commission of the offences.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025On 06.04.2025 at around 08.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant’s brother-in-law,viz., Sundaram, was at his residence, he was kidnapped by three persons in a car.Investigation further revealed that a property dispute exists between the victim andA1. He further submitted that A1 demanded the victim to execute sale deeds in hisfavour and the same was refused by victim. Consequently, all the accused conspiredand kidnapped the victim in a car on 06.04.2025, took him to various places uptoNagpur, and he was ultimately rescued on 15.04.2025. The investigation is at anascent stage. He further submitted that the investigating agency collected the CallDetail Records (CDR), which prima facie established the involvement of thepetitioner in the crime. He also submitted that A1 has three previous cases including302 of IPC and therefore, the learned Government Advocate strongly opposed thegrant of bail to the petitioner, stating that if the petitioner released on bail, thepetitioner may pose a threat to the victim, the defacto complainant, and their family,and may also tamper with the evidence. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss thepetition. 6. Mr.T.K.Gopalan, the learned counsel for the intervener, submitted that acivil case pertaining to the disputed property was posted for hearing on 08.04.2025before this Court. Two days prior to the hearing, the present incident occurred. He4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025further submitted that the accused persons coerced the victim to act according totheir wishes in order to usurp the disputed property. They took him to variousplaces and assaulted him. He also submitted that the accused had stolen electronicdevices from the victim’s house. He emphasized that the present case amounts to anorganized crime. However, the victim was fortunately rescued alive. He, therefore,strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that if the petitioner isreleased on bail, he will cause threat to the victim, the defacto complainant, andtheir family, and may also tamper with the evidence. Accordingly, he prayed for thedismissal of the bail petition. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel on either side and perused thematerials available on record.8. Considering the rival contentions made by the learned counsel on either sideand upon perusal of the materials available on record, including the Call DetailRecords (CDR), it prima facie appears that the accused persons were involved in thealleged conspiracy. Taking into account the fact that the investigation is still at anascent stage, the gravity of offence and also taking note of the previous antecedentsagainst the petitioner, this Court is of the view that if bail is granted to the petitioner,5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025he may cause threat to the defacto complainant and other witnesses and try to erasethe evidence. Hence, this Court is of the view that further custody of the petitioner isabsolutely necessary to unearth the truth. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grantbail to the petitioner at this stage. 9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Sd/- 09/05/2025/ TRUE COPY //05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. pal To1.The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station, Madurai City.2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.8373 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8373 of 2025 Date :09/05/2025 RK (14/05/2025) 7 P / 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.7/7