Usha v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1.Usha 2.Jeiganesh 3.Vanaja 4.Kamalhasan

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.60 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Crime No.60 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondent :

Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.60 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 329(3), 331(3), 305(a), 351(2) of BNS.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the daughter in law of the first petitioner; that the petitioners had entered into the defacto complainant's property and committed theft of 10 sovereign of Gold Ornaments and Rs.50,000/- of cash. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false; that the petitioners and the defacto complainant had a property dispute; that the first petitioner after receiving sale consideration, handed over the possession of the property to the third petitioner; and that since the defacto complainant had a Civil dispute with the petitioners, a false complaint has been given. Thus, the petitioenrs sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

Page No.2 of 6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case.

5. Considering the nature of the allegations, the relationship between the parties; and the fact that there are civil disputes between the parties, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.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 copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Page No.3 of 6

Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners 2 & 4 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders and the petitioners 1 & 3 shall report before the respondent police as and when required; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 B.N.S.

11.03.2025 rkp Page No.4 of 6

Copy to:

1.The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Ranipet District.

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

rkp Page No.5 of 6

11.03.2025 Page No.6 of 6