High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 15/07/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAICRL OP(MD). Nos.10990 & 11168 of 2025Selvam,S/o.Subbiah ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990 of 2025/AccusedPoobalan,S/o.Gurusamy ... Petitioner inCrl.O.P.(MD).No.11168 of 2025/A1 VsThe State of Tamilnadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police,Irukkankudi Police Station,Virudhunagar.(Crime No.125 of 2024) ... Respondent/Complainant in both petitions For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanakumar, (in Crl.O.P.(MD) Advocate No.10990/2025) For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian, (in Crl.O.P.(MD) Advocate No.11168/2025) For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, (in both petitions) Government Advocate (Criminal Side)1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.125 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the offences initially punishable under Section 194 of BNSS,2023 and later, altered to Section 105(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.125 of 2024 on thefile of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is a residentof Irukkankudi and works as a temporary employee at the Irukkankudi MariammanTemple. His wife is employed at a garments company in Sattur. Their daughter,Samyuktha, was studying LKG at Little Buds Kids School, Sattur. On the commonpathway leading to the street where the de-facto complainant resides, an iron pipehad been installed to support a pole belonging to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.This pole supplied electricity to the de-facto complainant’s house and three otherhouses. On 30.09.2024, at about 7.30 a.m., one Viji suffered an electric shock upontouching the said pole. Information regarding the incident was conveyed to theElectricity Board, but no action was taken by the staff of Electricity Board.Subsequently, on the same day, at about 8.30 a.m., while the de-facto complainant's2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990daughter was playing near the electric pole, she inadvertently touched the said pole,and died from an electric shock. Hence, the present case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st accused isworking as a Foreman in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sattur, while the 2ndaccused is working as a Line Inspector, and they would not be assigned any fieldworks. The allegation against them is that despite having knowledge of the electriccurrent emanating from the pole, they failed to take any action. However, it issubmitted that there are 25 employees working in the concerned Electricity Board,including nearly 10 gangmen. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners hadprior knowledge of the electrical issue at the said location. Further, the petitioners'reporting time is around 8.50 a.m., and after reporting only they are assigned duties.Therefore, implicating the petitioners as accused in this case solely on the groundthat they are employees of the Electricity Board and holding them responsible forthe said incident, without any material evidence, amounts to harassment. They,however, submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions thatmay be imposed by this Court. Hence, they seek anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) filed a status report3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990stating that there are totally two accused persons in this case and the petitionershave been arrayed as A1 and A2. Both the accused are responsible for theoccurrence. The pole was installed only as a temporary arrangement. Despiterepeated requests from the villagers to remove the said pole, no action was taken.Due to the petitioners' negligence, a 5 year old child died from an electric shock.Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the natureof the offence, and taking note of the fact that as the date of occurrence is 30.09.2024,by this time most of the investigation might have been completed, and that as perthe status report, the respondent police have already collected all material recordssuch as the hospital report, accident register, and postmortem certificate, andconsidering the stage of the enquiry, this Court is of the view that the custodialinterrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. Hence, this Court is inclined togrant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event ofarrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on whichthe order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, on4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (RupeesTwenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or tothe satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, failing which, thepetitions for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumbimpression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadharcard or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(b) the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur. In the event of any change in theirresidential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Sattur;(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m.,until further orders;(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial;(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10990with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bailby the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] and;(g) if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registeredunder Section 269 of BNS, 2023. sd/- 15/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. mknTO1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur.2.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.3.The Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi Police Station,Virudhunagar.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.109904.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.P.SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-7632[I] dated 16/07/2025 ) COMMON ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10990 & 11168 of 2025 Date :15/07/2025 SBN/06.08.2025 7P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7