Murugan v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1.Murugan 2.Gangadharan 3.P.Manjula 4.Venkatesan 5.Kamala 6.Amudha petitioners/Accused 1-6 Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station Vellore District.
(Crime. No. 15 of 2025) Respondent(s) For petitioners (s): Mr.P.Kannan 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 191(2), 296(6), 115(2), 74, 351 (2) of the B.N.S.Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act in Crime No. 15 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant relating to the conversion of the petitioners as Christians; that on account of the same, there was a wordy quarrel; and that the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false; that the first petitioner's father had lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant in Cr.No.14 of 2025 and that in any case custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation and hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there is a case and counter case; that the de facto complainant was attacked by hands.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made on either side; nature of allegation; that there is a case and counter case and since custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: (a) 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi on condition that the petitioners 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police once a week on every Saturday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders; [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 petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vca 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
25.02.2025 vca To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station Vellore District.
(Crime. No. 15 of 2025)