Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1.Vinoth @ Vinothkumar 2.Dony @ Donymeclin
...Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.62 of 2025) ...
Respondent PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.62 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :
Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.03.2025, seeking bail Page No.1 of 6
in Crime No.62 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(3), 308(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that due to a wordy quarrel in respect of the property dispute, the petitioners along with the other accused had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, threatened him of dire consequences, assaulted him with hands and caused injuries and also caused damages to the Bolero Car bearing Registration No.TN-21-BU8097. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations are false; that the similarly placed co-accused was granted bail by the lower Court and that in any case, considering the period of incarceration from 05.03.2025, the petitioners may be released on bail. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are seven previous cases pending against the first petitioner and the second petitioner has one previous case and they are on bail in those cases. Page No.2 of 6
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6.Considering the nature of allegations, period of incarceration, the fact that the petitioners are on bail in the previous cases, the similarly placed co-accused was released on bail by the lower Court and since further custody of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Ranipet District, and on further conditions 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; Page No.3 of 6
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] 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.
20.03.2025 ata Page No.4 of 6
Copy to:
1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Ranipet District.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
3.Sub Jail, Walajapet, Ranipet District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.5 of 6
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
ata 20.03.2025 Page No.6 of 6