V Kathiravan Alies Kathiravan Venugopal v. The State Rep.By Inspector Of Police
Crl.O.P.No.3838 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN.
J., This matter is posted today before this Court under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on 17.02.2025, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in Crl.OP.No.3838 of 2023 and directed petitioners 2 to 4, being ladies, to report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. However, in the order, it is mentioned as 'the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30. a.m., until further orders'. Thus, he prayed for suitable directions.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Registry is directed to issue order copy afresh forthwith, by amending paragraph No.8[a] of the order as follows: [a] the 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30. a.m., until further orders and the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation." 05.03.2025 Issue order copy by 06.03.2025 Upload order copy forthwith ars 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.3838 of 2025
1. V.Kathiravan @ Kathiravan Venugopal
2. B.Shobana
3. Vanitha @ Vanitha Venugopal
4. Sasikala @ V.Sasikala Ramachandiran ... Petitioners
Versus
The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.
Crime No.33 of 2025.
... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.33 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For petitioners : Mr.J.S.Arun Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 2/7
O R D E R
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), of B.N.S.S Act, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Woman Act, 2002 in Crime No.33 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant regarding land dispute. Due to which, the petitioners had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and threatened her and also caused injuries to her. Hence, the case.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case and in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.
Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions 3/7
submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6.
Considering the nature of allegations and the injured had been discharged from the hospital, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. 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 is made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate, Sholingar on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of 4/7
the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police station daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[d] 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 Petitioners are 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]; [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
17.02.2025 Vv 5/7
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
6/7
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.3838 of 2025 17.02.2025 7/7