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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Anbu

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.158 of 2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.158 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Muthukumar Raja For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

Though this Court had earlier directed this Criminal Original Petition Page No.1 of 7

to be listed before the same learned Judge, who had heard the application seeking bail or anticipatory bail of the accused relating to the same FIR, in view of the subsequent clarification made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition is taken up by this Court.

2. The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 452, 341, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.158 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

3. The case of the prosecution is that there was a property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, the petitioner along with other accused persons have demolished the shop of the defacto complainant and threatened the mother of the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Page No.2 of 7

petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are close relatives and there was a property dispute between them; that A1 and A2 in this case, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.06.2024 and 06.06.2024 in Crl.O.P.Nos.14415 of 2024 and 11880 of 2024, respectively; and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing this petition, reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed the fact that civil suits are pending between the parties and that the co-accused/A1 and A2 have been granted anticipatory bail.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record. Page No.3 of 7

7. Considering the nature of allegations, the fact that civil suits are pending between the parties and the co-accused/A1 and A2, have been granted anticipatory bail and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. 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 on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, 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 said Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Page No.4 of 7

Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 vs. State of Kerala reported in [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

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

17.02.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Internet: Yes/No ars To

1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Page No.5 of 7

George Town, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ars Page No.6 of 7

17.02.2025 Page No.7 of 7