High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 19/08/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAICRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 2025andCRL MP(MD). No.10475 of 20251.N.Seenivasagan,S/o.Nagarajan2.A.Manivannan,S/o.Alagesan3.K.Silambarasan,S/o.Kannan4.K.Nithishkumar,S/o.Kannan ... Petitioners/A3 to A6 VsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by, the Sub-Inspector of Police,Vadipatti Police Station,Madurai.(Crime No.199 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.MP.Amalan, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 2025PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.199 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A3 to A6, who apprehend arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 329(3),303(2), 324(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibitionof Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.199 of 2025 on the file of therespondent police, seek anticipatory bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2025, while the de-factocomplainant was returning from attending a tenancy case before the Tahsildar,Vadipatti, she found that the 2nd accused, along with the other accused, hadtrespassed into her land, cut down and stolen the trees, and caused damage using aJCB. When questioned, the 2nd accused claimed that he had been executing the workunder the instructions of the 1st accused. It is further alleged that the 2nd accusedcriminally intimidated the de-facto complainant using filthy language. Hence, thepresent case was registered. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 1staccused is the cultivating tenant of an extent of 7.92 acres in Thanichiyam Village,which belongs to the family of the de-facto complainant, in respect of which he has2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 2025preferred a case before the Tahsildar, Vadipatti, which is pending disposal. Since the1st accused has been receiving repeated threats of dispossession from the said lands,he has also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.115 of 2024 before the District Munsif Court,Vadipatti, seeking a permanent injunction, which is pending as well. It was furthersubmitted that the 1st accused owns 30 cents of land in Patta No.6370, situated infront of the lands of the de-facto complainant. For want of a pathway to access thoselands, the de-facto complainant’s husband, who is a retired DIG (Jail Department),has been threatening the 1st accused to sell the land to him for pathway purposes,which the 1st accused refused. Despite the 1st accused lodging several complaintsbefore the respondent police in this regard, no action has been taken.4. He further submitted that the 2nd accused, who is the driver of the JCB, wasinstructed by the 1st accused to clear the Seemai Karuvela trees, which had beenplanted by the de-facto complainant’s husband with the intention of preventing the1st accused from cultivating his land. The 1st and 2nd accused, along with thepetitioners, had only cleared the Seemai Karuvela trees from the patta land of the 1staccused. He submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have notcommitted any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, the petitioners arewilling to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, heseeks anticipatory bail for the petitioners.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 20255. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the stolen trees andthe JCB have not yet been recovered by the respondent police. He further submittedthat the accused caused damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. If the accused aregranted anticipatory bail, they may abscond. Therefore, custodial interrogation ofthe accused is very much necessary. Hence, he strongly opposed to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the issuepertains to a civil dispute. There are totally six accused persons in this case and thepetitioners have been arrayed as A3 to A6. He further submitted that no onesutained any injuries due to the incident. However, he opposed to grant anticipatorybail to the petitioners. 7. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, thenature of the offence, and also taking note of the fact that the issue pertains to a civildispute, and that no one sustained any injuries due to the incident, and that as thedate of registration of FIR is 19.07.2025, by this time material part of theinvestigation might have been completed, this Court is of the view that custodialinterrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. Hence, this court is inclined to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 2025arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receiptof a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, MaduraiDistrict on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for alike sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intendsto arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, MaduraiDistrict, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and onfurther 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 number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District. In the event of anychange in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District;(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;5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 2025(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 accordancewith 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, 2023.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, theconnected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 19/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /09/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. mknTO1.The Judicial Magistrate,Vadipatti, Madurai District.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12566 of 20252.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Vadipatti Police Station,Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.S.CHANDRASEKARAN, Advocate ( SR-8976[I] dated 20/08/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12566 of 2025 Date :19/08/2025 SBN/10.09.2025 7P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7