High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on: 10.06.2025Pronounced on: 19.06.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.7014 of 2025Janamenthiran...Petitioner/Accused No.7Vs.The State of Tamilnadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Thallakulam Police Station,Madurai District.(Crime No.446 of 2025)... Respondent/ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge thepetitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondentpolice. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side)For Intervenor : Mr.T.K.GopalanO R D E RThe petitioner seeks bail for the alleged offences u/s 305(a), 137(2) @ 305(a),140(2), 111(3), 61(2), 49, 127(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.446 of 2025 on thefile of the respondent police.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 20252. The case of the prosecution is that there has been civil dispute betweenMariaraj/Accused No.1 and the victim in respect of property situated in Dindiguland Kodaikanal as the victim failed to register the sale deed in accordance with saleagreement entered into between them. In the meanwhile, the victim was foundmissing from his residence on 06.04.2025, hence the defacto complainant, who is thebrother-in-law of victim, lodged a complaint and also alleged certain documents,computer hard disk and CCTV were also found missing from the premises. It isalleged by the prosecution that the victim was kidnapped by the petitioner alongwith other accused at the instant of Mariaraj/Accused No.1, upon conspiracy,because of the civil dispute between the petitioner and the victim.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the secondpetition seeking for bail. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.7, who is the driverof the car, and he drove the car on the instructions of the customer. He had noknowledge about the act of crime or kidnapping. The overtact against the petitioner isvery limited to that of a driver of the vehicle allegedly used in the incident. There isno allegation of violence, abduction, or direct involvement attributed to the primeaccused. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, only he was a driver2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025of the car. The earlier bail petition was dismissed by this Court as the investigation atthe initial stage. Now, the number of witnesses has been examined and the victimwas also given a statement before the Judicial Magistrate. No material was recoveredfrom the petitioner. The major portion of the material investigation has beencompleted. The petitioner is in custody for the past 45 days, and there is sufficientprogress in the investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be granted bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing forthe respondent police would submit that originally the FIR was registered against thethree unknown persons. But, during the course of investigation, it came to light that12 accused were involved in the commission of the offences upon the land disputeexisted between the victim and the petitioner for long years. The petitioner is thedriver of the car, who drove the vehicle for 14 days, whileso, he might haveknowledge of kidnapping. Since he is also involved in crime, he has not chosen toquestion about long travel to various places. As the victim did not complete theregistration as per sale agreement and also as the case filed by primeaccused/Accused No.1 ended in dismissal, the petitioner was conspired by AccusedNo.1 for kidnapping and in furtherance thereof, on 06.04.2025 at about 08.00 a.m., thevictim was kidnapped from his house by three accused in a car driven by the3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025petitioner. The investigating team rescued the victim on 15.04.2025 without anyphysical injury, who later gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate and thesame was recorded. During the course of investigation, Call Detail Records (CDR) ofcell phone of the petitioner with other accused were collected, which would primafacie reveal the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The investigation ispending. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.5. The learned counsel for the intervener has submitted that the Accused No.1filed a civil suit for specific performance against the intervenor and the same wasdismissed. In order to prevent the appearance of the intervener before the High Courtand to usurp his property, the prime accused/Accused No.1, along with otheraccused, conspired to kidnap him. At the instigation of Mariaraj/Accused No.1, theintervener was kidnapped in a car driven by the petitioner and he was taken tovarious places for 14 days, during those days, he was harassed and humiliated. On18.04.2025, he was secured by the police officials while he was taken back to Madurai,and two accused fled away. It is learned that 15 accused were involved in this crime,and out of them, 13 accused were arrested. One Vijayan of Myladuthurai was themaster mind of crime. The intervener/victim gave a statement before the JudicialMagistrate, narrating the harassment, confinement and humiliation. If the4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025petitioner/Accused No.7 is released on bail, the further investigation would beaffected, so the petition may be dismissed.6. Heard and perused available records. It is seen from the records that thevictim was kidnapped outside of his house on 06.04.2025 at 8.00 a.m. The complaintwas lodged only on 07.04.2025 at 02.15 p.m. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, hewas accompanied with three known persons in a car as revealed from CCTV footage.The petitioner was the driver of the car, was arrested on 15.04.2025 and sent tojudicial custody. On 18.04.2025, the victim was secured without any injury isadmitted. On 28.04.2025, he gave a statement about travel of 14 days includingconfinement and also worship at the temple. There is no statement against thepetitioner's involvement and also of shouting or trying to escape from the allegedpersons and he was harassed or beaten while such an endeavour. It is a settledphrase that ‘bail is right jail is exception’. The Supreme Court issued guidelines in areported decision in 2022(3) MWN (Cr.) 145 (SC) while considering the bailapplications of the accused. An accused should not be incarcerated long periodwithout sufficient cause. The right of bail should not be affected by mere pre-trialdetention of the accused, until there are circumstances of tampering of witnesses tobe shown by the prosecution. No material was recovered from the petitioner.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025The petitioner is in custody from 15.04.2025. The earlier bail petition was dismissedon 09.05.2025, considering the preliminary stage of investigation. Now, there is ampledevelopment in the investigation, and almost all the accused were arrested and thematerial part of the investigation might have been completed. On the prosecutionside, there is no material produced if the accused is released on bail, he would tamperthe evidence. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances and alsoconsidering the age and incarceration period of the petitioner, this Court is inclined togrant bail subject to the following conditions: 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing abond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with twosureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,Madurai, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in thesurety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passBook to ensure their identity;[b] The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contact number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. If the petitioner changes hisresidential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate,Madurai;6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025(c) The petitioner shall stay at Salem and shall appear before the Inspector ofPolice, Shevapet Police Station daily twice at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until furtherorders;[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial;[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance withlaw as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 269 BNS. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 19/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / 19/06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSD7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9199 of 2025TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IIMADURAI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEMADURAI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THALLAKULAM POLICE STATION,MADURAI DISTRICT.4 THE SUPERINTENDENTCENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO:THE INSPECTOR OF POLICESHEVAPET POLICE STATION, SALEM. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9199 of 2025 Date :19/06/2025 SS/SAR- /19/06/2025/ 8P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8