Arputha Raj v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.03.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.7452 of 2025 Arputha Raj .. Petitioner/sole accused Vs.

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.70 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 his arrest in Crime No.70 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Vishwanth S.C.

For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.70 of 2025, seeks Page No.1 of 6

anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the defacto complainant that on 01.07.2023, the defacto complainant paid a cash of Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner, since he had promised a job for the defacto complainant in Neyveli Lignite Corporation; and that the petitioner neither returned money nor obtained a job. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false; that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, it is only a money dispute and there is no basis for the allegation against the petitioner; and that in any case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation and prayed for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and fairly submitted that the defacto complainant has not produced any Page No.2 of 6

material to substantiate his allegations.

5. This Court on perusal of the FIR is of the view that the alleged transaction took place on 01.07.2023 and there is no other material except the statement of the defacto complainant that a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- has been paid by cash.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the nature of the allegation against this petitioner, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation and is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.

7. 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 is made ready, before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, on condition that the petitioner 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 Page No.3 of 6

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, twice a week i.e., on every Monday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[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.

Page No.4 of 6

19.03.2025 Index : Yes / No ars SUNDER MOHAN , J.

ars To 1.The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District.

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Crl.O.P.No.7452 of 2025 Page No.5 of 6

19.03.2025 Page No.6 of 6