High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 12.06.2025 Pronounced on : 01.07.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.7363 of 20251.T.V.SenthilkumarS/o.Venkatachalam2.ShenbagavalliW/o.Senthilkumar3.Shankar @ EVS ShankarS/o.Esakkimuthu ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 & 5Vs.The State of Tamilnadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,E.Pudur Police Station,Trichy City.(Crime No.147 of 2025) ...Respondent/Complainant1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 2025PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, toenlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.147 of2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.V.KarunaFor Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side)For Intervenor : Mr.M.Jerin MathewORDERThe petitioner seeks anticipatory bail upon the apprehension of arrest at thehands of the respondent police for the alleged offence U/s.296(b), 324(4) of BNS,2023 and U/s.67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in connection with CrimeNo.147 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the councillorof ward No.57 of Trichy Corporation. He wanted to carry out the removal work ofencroachments in the public pathway as per the direction by the Hon’ble MaduraiBench of Madras High Court. On 29.03.2025, the defacto complainant asked thepetitioners and other accused to remove the encroachments made by them on thepublic pathway for forming road storm drainage. But, the petitioners threw mud onthe defacto complainant and abused him and also the accused captured the incident2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 2025and published it in social media, which caused defame to the defacto complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while removingdrainage water at the instance of the defacto complainant, the wall of the AccusedNos.1 and 2 was damaged, hence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 questioned the same. Asthere was an earlier election motive between the defacto complainant and AccusedNos.1 and 2, the present case has been registered. The respondent police, withoutany preliminary enquiry, registered the case. The petitioners have not committedany offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners apprehend arrest by therespondent police and so pray for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for therespondent police has submitted that while the defacto complainant carried out thework for forking road storm drainage by removing encroachment made by AccusedNos.1 and 2, the petitioners along with Accused Nos.1 and 2 prevented the defactocomplainant to execute the work by throwing mud on him and also used abusivefilthy languages against him. He further submitted that the incident was capturedby the accused and the same has been posted on the reel video through social media.Accused Nos.1 and 2 are absconding. The petitioners are Accused Nos.3 to 5, whoseek anticipatory bail. If they are granted anticipatory bail, they tamper with theevidence and would not cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays not to3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 2025grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5. The learned counsel for the intervening petitioner/defacto complainantsubmitted that the defacto complainant is a councillor of Ward No.57 at Trichy. Theaccused family encroached on the public road and did not allow to construct publicroad and storm water drainage. In the year 2018, the intervening petitioner alreadyfiled W.P(MD)No.7586 of 2018 before this court, in which direction was issued. Thepetitioners filed W.P(MD)No.28870 of 2022. This Court passed the order on20.11.2023 in that writ petition, that if the encroached portion is in fact belonged tothe petitioners, the same might be measured by an advocate commissioner andsuitable compensation might be given. The encroached area was resurveyed by therevenue officials and by the advocate commissioner on 28.02.2025, and a report wasfiled to that effect on 24.03.2025. The petitioners were given an opportunity to fileany petition, but they failed to do so. So the process of forming public road wascontinued, and encroachments were removed to form road storm drainage. Thedefacto complainant was not allowed to carry out the work and he was abused withfilthy language by the accused and the same was captured by video, which waspublished in social media by the petitioners. The intervening petitioner has filedphotos showing the previous condition and present change of the public pathwayand also Whatsapp message. The petitioners will tamper with the evidence if they4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 2025granted anticipatory bail.6. Heard and perused the available records. It is seen from the records that thedefacto complainant, who is the councillor of ward No.57 at Trichy, made the publicpathway in a neat and clean manner by removing encroachments. The petitionersdisallowed him to remove the encroachments in spite of the direction of this Courtin earlier petitions. The defacto complainant carried out public work, so it is allegedthat the petitioners, along with Accused Nos.1 and 2, abused him with filthylanguage and threw mud on him. It is also alleged that the petitioners captured theincident through video and published the reel video in social media and posted themessages. The defacto complainant/intervene petitioner filed copies of imagesshowing the present and previous condition of pathway and Whatsapp messages.So, there is a prima facie allegation and overtact as against the petitioners. Thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that Accused Nos.1 and 2 arestill absconding and the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 5, who moved this Court foranticipatory bail. The petitioners obstructed the public work and published theoccurrence in social media, which caused defame to the defacto complainant. Theinterrogation of the accused is necessary. The investigation is at preliminary stage.Considering the above facts and circumstances and the bad antecedents of thepetitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.8792 of 20257. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, theconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 01/07/2025/ TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. vsdTO1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E.PUDUR, TRICHY CITY.2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRASHIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.V.KARUNA, Advocate ( SR-6973[I] dated 01/07/2025 )+1 CC to M/s.M.JERIN MATHEW, Advocate ( SR-7095[I] dated 03/07/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8792 of 2025 Date :01/07/2025 NBF/04.07.2025 6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6