High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 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.9200 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.7018 of 2025Mariaraj...Petitioner/Accused No.1Vs.The State of Tamilnadu throughThe 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 No.1 on bail in Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondentpolice. For Petitioner : Mr.Anandha Padmanabhan for M/s.Apn Law Associates 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 (*) under sections 305(a),137(2) of BNS @ 305(a), 140(2), 111(3), 61(2), 49, 127(2) and 351(2)of BNS 2023 in Cr.No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 20252. The case of the prosecution is that there has been civil dispute between thepetitioner and the victim in respect of property situated in Dindigul and Kodaikanalas the victim failed to register the sale deed in accordance with sale agreemententered into between them. In the meanwhile, the victim was found missing from hisresidence on 06.04.2025, hence, the defacto complainant, who is the brother-in-law ofthe victim, lodged a complaint and also alleged that certain documents, computerhard disk and CCTV were also found missing from the premises. It is alleged by theprosecution that the victim was kidnapped by the other accused at the instant ofAccused No.1 upon conspiracy, because of the civil dispute between the petitionerand the victim.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the secondpetition seeking for bail. The petitioner is aged above 70 years, the alleged civil suitwas filed in the year 2011 and the suits were already disposed of, directing the victimto repay the advance amount. The petitioner has not committed any offence asalleged. As per CCTV, the victim himself voluntarily accompanied with others, thattoo without any force or coercion. There is no connection with the petitioner. Thealleged kidnapping happened on 06.04.2025 at 8.00 a.m., but the complaint was2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 2025lodged with delay by the defacto complainant only on 07.04.2025 at 02.15 p.m.,without any reason for delay. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this casebased on the confession statement of the co-accused. The victim has been securedwithout any injury. The victim has also gave a statement before the JudicialMagistrate mainly regarding the civil dispute. The petitioner is diabetic, renalimpairment from 2016 and heart patient. The petitioner is in judicial custody from thedate of arrest. Because of long incarceration, the petitioner was unable to getperiodical medical check up. The earlier bail petition was dismissed by this Court asthe investigation at initial stage. Now, the number of witnesses has been examinedand even the victim was also given a statement before the Judicial Magistrate. Themajor portion of the material investigation has been completed. The petitioner wasacquitted from the alleged previous case and field copy of the judgment. Thepetitioner is in judicial custody for more than 55 days. Hence, the petitioner may begranted bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing forthe respondent police would submit that originally the FIR was registered againstthree 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 the3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 2025prime accused/Accused No.1. Since the victim did not sell the property as per thesale agreement and since the case filed by the Accused No.1 ended in dismissal, thepetitioner conspired with other accused to kidnap the victim in order to grab theproperty. In furtherance thereof, on 06.04.2025 at about 08.00 a.m., the victim waskidnapped from his house by three accused in a car at the instigation of AccusedNo.1 and he was taken to various places upto Nagpur. The investigating teamrescued the victim on 15.04.2025 without any physical injury, who later gave astatement before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the same was recorded. Duringthe course of investigation, Call Detail Records (CDR) of cell phone of the petitionerwith other accused were collected, which would prima facie reveal the involvementof the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner has three previous cases, includingmurder case. The earlier petition was dismissed on 09.05.2025. In case the petitioner isgranted bail, he would tamper the evidences. The investigation is pending. Therefore,the petition may be dismissed.5. The learned counsel for the intervener has submitted that the petitioner fileda civil suit for specific performance against the intervener and the same wasdismissed. The petitioner preferred the appeal before this Court and posted on08.04.2025. In order to prevent the appearance of the intervener before the High Court4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 2025and to usurp his property, the petitioner, along with other accused, conspired tokidnap him. At the instigation of the petitioner, the intervener was kidnapped and hewas taken to various places for 14 days, during those days he was harassed andhumiliated. On 18.04.2025, he was secured by the police officials while he was takenback to Madurai, and two accused fled away. It is learned that 15 accused wereinvolved in this crime, and out of them, 13 accused were arrested. One Vijayan ofMyladuthurai was the master mind of crime. He gave a statement before the JudicialMagistrate narrating the harassment, confinement and humiliation. If the petitioner isreleased on bail, he will escape from the clutches of law, so the petition may bedismissed.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 FIR, he wasaccompanied with three known persons in a car as revealed from CCTV footage. Thepetitioner was arrested on 16.04.2025 and sent to judicial custody. On 18.04.2025, thevictim was secured without any injury is admitted. On 28.04.2025, he gave astatement about travel of 14 days including confinement and also worship at thetemple. There is no statement of shouting or trying to escape from the alleged5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 2025persons and he was harassed or beaten while such endeavour. It is settled phrase that‘bail is right jail is exception’. The Supreme Court issued guidelines in a reporteddecision in 2022(3) MWN (Cr.) 145 (SC) while considering the bail applications of theaccused. An accused should not be incarcerated long period without sufficient cause.The right of bail should not be affected by mere pre-trial detention of the accused,until there are circumstances of tampering of witnesses to be shown by theprosecution. Though the prosecution alleged previous case against the petitioner, thepetitioner stated he was acquitted from that case and filed a copy of the judgment.The petitioner is aged 70 years and he is a patient of renal impairment, heart patientas seen from the medical records filed by him. The petitioner is in custody for the past63 days. The earlier bail petition was dismissed on 09.05.2025, considering thepreliminary stage of investigation. Now, there is ample development in theinvestigation and almost all the accused were arrested and the material part of theinvestigation might have been completed. On the prosecution side, there is nomaterial produced if the accused is released on bail, he would flee away or tamperthe evidence. Therefore, considering the above circumstances and also consideringthe age and incarceration period of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bailsubject to the following conditions: 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 20257. 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.2,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.2, Madurai. If the petitioner changes his residentialaddress, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai;(c) The petitioner shall stay at Salem and shall appear before the Inspector ofPolice, Annadhanapatti Police Station, Salem, daily twice at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.until further orders;[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 with7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 2025law 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(*)Amended as per the order of thisHon'ble court dated 24/06/2025made in CRL.M.P(MD)8012 OF2025 IN CRL.OP(MD) 9200 OF2025Further time is extended by ten daysfrom the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order to comply the order of thisCourt in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9200 of2025 dated 19.06.2025. / TRUE COPY / 24/06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSD8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.9200 of 2025TOTO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2025 ALREADY DESPATCHED1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2MADURAI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEMADURAI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION,MADURAI CITY,4 THE SUPERINTENDENTCENTRAL PRISON, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI.5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO:THE INSPECTOR OF POLICEANNADHANAPATTI POLICE STATION, SALEM.+1 CC to M/s.M/S.APN LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-6492[I] dated19/06/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9200 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.7018 of 2025 Date :19/06/2025 SS/SAR- /19/06/2025/ 9P/8CPR/24/06/2025/9P/8CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 9/9