Ravichandran v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P. No.1180 of 2025 Ravichandran ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, M.3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate [Criminal Side]

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 329[4], 296[b], 115[2], 351[3] of BNS 2023 read with 3[1] of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.17 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is an erstwhile employee of the defacto complainant, had entered the office of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and attacked him and also caused damage to the articles in the company. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and as the petitioner went to the company of the defacto complainant and asked to settle the benefits due to him, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner, who is an erstwhile employee of the defacto complainant not only assaulted the defacto complainant but also caused damage to the articles in the company.

5. It appears that the petitioner was employed in the defacto complainant company and as he did not settle his claims, the incident took place. The petitioner gave assurance before this Court that he will keep

away from the premises of the defacto complainant and that he will approach the appropriate forum to recover his claims from the defacto complainant.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will keep away from the premises of the defacto complainant and he will approach appropriate forum to recover his claims from the defacto complainant and that the petitioner will also file an affidavit to that effect while executing the bail bond, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall file an undertaking affidavit to the effect that he will keep away from the premises of the defacto complainant and that he will approach the appropriate forum to recover his claims from the defacto complainant at the time of executing the bond. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

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

[d] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate / Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

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

17.01.2025 vrc

To,

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram

2. The Inspector of Police, M.3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

vrc Crl.O.P. No.1180 of 2025 17.01.2025