Thirumurugan @ Chandrasekar v. The State Rep. By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.6647 of 2025 1.Thirumurugan @ Chandrasekar 2.Prakash alias Prakash Raj 3.Ragini .. Petitioners Vs.
The State rep by The Inspector of Police, T-18, Thazhambur Police Station, Pallikaranai District.
(Crime No.56 of 2025) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.56 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : M/s.Yuvaraj B For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.P.Charles
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Page No.1 of 6
police for the offences punishable under Section 329(4), 365, 115(2), 140(3), 308(2) and 308(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.56 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.15,30,000/- to the defacto complainant on the promise made by the defacto complainant that he would double the money and return it within a period of one year; that thereafter, in 2023 the petitioners abducted the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.73,35,000/- on various dates and further, in December 2024, the 1st petitioner had demanded an additional sum of Rs.20,00,000 from the defacto complainant relating to the previous transactions.
3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false; that the defacto complainant cheated the petitioners and there were several transactions between the defacto complainant and the petitioner; and that in any case, custodial interrogation is not required and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page No.2 of 6
4.
The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that by extortion, the petitioners had received a total sum of Rs.73,35,000/- in 2023 and are now making further demands and hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 5.
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 submitted that the alleged transactions took place in 2023.
6.
Considering the fact that the alleged transactions between the petitioners and defacto complainant took place in 2023, and since, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner 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 is made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Chengalpet, on condition that the petitioner shall Page No.3 of 6
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 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 1st and 2nd petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and the 3rd petitioner shall appeal 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 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
Page No.4 of 6
13.03.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dpa To 1.The Inspector of Police, T-18, Thazhambur Police Station, Pallikaranai District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Chengalpet.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
dpa Page No.5 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.6647 of 2025 13.03.2025 Page No.6 of 6