Syed Imam v. The State By, The Inspector Of Police,

CRL OP NO. 2596 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-02-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 2596 of 2025 1.Syed Imam S/o.Syed Kasim 2.Syed Sardhar S/o Syed Imam 3.Syed Rafik S/o Syed Imam . ...Petitioner(s) Vs.

The State by, The Inspector of Police, Baluchetty Chatram Police Station, Kanchipuram District. (Cr.No.04/2025) ..Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ezhil Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend 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, seek anticipatory bail.

2.This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. The case of the prosecution is that the first 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 in the mosque for about 3 weeks. The husband of the de facto complainant reported the same to the first petitioner, who in turn, directed the defacto complainant to report the issue to the Muthavalli of the said Mosque, which resulted in quarrel among themselves, due to which, the defacto complainant's husband was assaulted by the accused, resulting in the victim loosing his eye sight.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stating that the petitioners along with others attacked the husband of the de facto complainant and caused grievous injury. He further submitted that the first petitioner/A1 is the person inflicted injury by using iron rod resulting in loss of eye sight of the victim and there is no change in circumstances in this case.

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. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. The earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1401 of 2025 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025. 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 first petitioner/A1 had inflicted injury by using iron rod resulting in the victim losing his eye sight and there is no change in circumstances in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

10-02-2025 raa To To 1.The Inspector of Police, Baluchetty Chatram Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

raa CRL OP NO. 2596 of 2025 10-02-2025