Sureshbabu v. The State By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Sureshbabu S/o. Dhandapani, No.5/4, Sendur Salai, Mailam Post, Tindivan Taluk, Villupuram District.
Petitioner(s) Vs The State By, The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District, Crime No.116 of 2025.
Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of Arrest in Crime No.116 of 2025, on the file of the Inspector of Police Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Silambu Selvan S For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner /A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 287 of BNS 2023 (U/s 285 of IPC), r/w Section 9(B)(1)(b) of The Indian Explosives Act, 1884, r/w Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 in Crime No.116 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, 12.5 kg of explosive powder was seized from the custody of A1; that the petitioner/A3 is one of the suppliers, who had given explosive substance to A1. Hence the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false. He further submitted that based on the confession of A1, he has been implicated; and that in any case, custodial interrogation is not required and sought for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4. 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 the petitioner has no bad antecedents. He further submitted that the contraband was seized from A1.
5. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner has no bad antecedents, the fact that the contraband was seized from co-accused and since custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute
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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
[c]the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d]the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 of B.N.S.
18-03-2025 AT Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT To 1.The State By, The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No.116 of 2025.
Crl. O.P. No. 7385 of 2025