Shanthi v. State Rep. By The Spl.Sub-Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO. 3194 of 2025
1. Shanthi
2. S.K. Dhanalakshmi
3. Jayanthi
4. R. Sanmugapriyan
5. H. Meenakshi
6. R. Vinurekha Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Spl.Sub-Inspector of Police, Chengalpet Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet District. In Cr.No. 830 of 2024 Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): R.Parthiban For Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.830 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 1/6
2.
The case of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant is the relative of the petitioners herein; that due to previous enmity related to a property dispute, the petitioners had abused the defacto complainant and her children using filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, this case.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioners had never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; and that the petitioners are ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation, and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.
Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that, due to family property dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners abused and intimidated the defacto complainant and her children with dire consequences; that the petitioners have no previous cases; and that the 2/6
investigation is pending.
5.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.
6.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioners, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that the petitioners have no previous cases, that except the fourth petitioner, all other petitioners herein are ladies and since, custodial interrogation is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7.
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 Additional Mahila Court, Chengalpet on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 3/6
respondent police or the police officer who intends 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 their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the fourth petitioner/ Sanmugapriyan shall report before the respondent police on every Monday and Thursday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders, the other petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. [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 4/6
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. 10.02.2025 stn To
1. State Rep. by The Spl.Sub-Inspector of Police, No.150, Siyon Street, Thirumani, Indira Nagar, Kancheepuram District.Chengalpet Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet District.
In Cr.No. 830 of 2024 SUNDER MOHAN, J.
stn 5/6
Crl.O.P. No.3194 of 2025 10.02.2025 6/6