Dhina @ Dinakaran v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

CRL OP NO. 189 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 189 of 2025 1.Dhina @ Dinakaran 2.Kanakaraj 3.Sounderraj 4.Venkatesh 5.Vivek Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector Of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, Chengalpet.

Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Rajkumar Alagesh Rajkumar Alagesh For Respondent(s):

S.Santhosh Government Advocate (criminal Side).

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.273 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 329(4), 118(1), 324(4) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail. 2.Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioners, false implication in this case, learned counsel for the petitioners seek indulgence of this court. He would submit that they are innocent and no way connected with this case. He would further submit that

they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the owner of the property and the defacto complainant is the person who has intervened the property and due to that only the incident occurred. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the injured have been discharged from the hospital and the RDO report also states that the petitioners are the owner of the property. 3.The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that on 26.12.2024, due to a civil dispute the petitioners have abused the defacto complainant, his daughter and his son-in-law and also assaulted them and threatened with dire consequences. He would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that there is no previous case as against this petitioners.

4.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the accused have trespassed into the premises of the defacto complainant and caused damage to the fence and bike worth about Rs.2.5 lakhs. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intend to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every day at 06.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

08-01-2025 ah To 1.The District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur. 2.The Inspector Of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, Chengalpet A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ah

CRL OP NO. 189 of 2025 08.01.2025