Syed Imam v. The State By The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP NO. 1401 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 1401 of 2025 Syed Imam S/o.Syed Kasim, No.108,Masudhi Street,Musaravakkam Village Kanchipuram Taluk And District and 2 Others Petitioner(s) Vs The State By The Inspector Of Police Baluchetty Chatram Police Station, Kancheepuram District Cr.No.04/2025 Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Ezhil Balaji G.Ezhilbalaji M.Nagaraj N.Navin Bharat R.Thulasi Manikandan T.Yuvaresh For Respondent(s):

S.Santhosh Government Advocate (criminal Side) Madras High Court.

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.4 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 is the Treasurer of the Mosque at Musaravakkam Village. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent Police on 03.01.2025 stating that there is sewage stagnating from the mosque for about 3 weeks. The husband of the de facto complainant reported the same to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly directed them to report the issue to the Muthavalli of the said Mosque, disclaiming responsibility for the problem. Subsequently, the de facto complainant's husband, accompanied by his friends Shakir and Himmu, confronted the 1st petitioner, leading to a physical altercation. On seeing the occurrence, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners/other accused, in retaliation, attempted to attack one Rafik. In the ensuing chaos, Shakir punched the defacto complainants' husband causing him to sustain an injury to his eye. Hence, this case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner along with co-accused attacked the husband of the de facto complainant and caused grievous injury. He further submitted that the investigation is in the initial stage.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record including the FIR.

6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that the investigation is in initial stage and also the fact that the petitioner and the other accused caused grievous injury on the husband of the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 22-01-2025 msv To The Inspector Of Police Baluchetty Chatram Police Station,Kancheepuram District