Manimaran v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.4866 of 2025
1. Manimaran
2. Inbarasi ... Petitioners
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police, P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.
(Cr.No.96 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of apprehending arrest in Cr.No.96 of 2025 on the file of theInspector of Police,P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station,Chennai District.
For petitioners : Mr.P. Muthamizh Selva Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
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), 1/5
115(2), 351(2), 333 of BNS 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNWH Act in Crime No.96 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives; that there was a family dispute between them; that on the date of occurrence, the accused A1 took the defacto complainant to a private place, where A2 abused and assaulted the defacto complainant.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false; and in any case, custodial interrogation is not required and sought for anticipatory bail for the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the petitioners have no bad antecedents.
2/5
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 the allegations, the fact that the parties are close relatives and the petitioners have no bad antecedents, this court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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 is made ready, before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai 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 the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that:
3/5
[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.
24.02.2025 Vv To
1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police, P-5, MKB Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
4/5
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.4866 of 2025 24.02.2025 5/5