V.Parthiban v. State, Represented By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP No. 10059 of 2025 1.V.Parthiban 2.V.Dhanalakshmi Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Police Station, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.225 of 2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : M/s.M.Abinu Monisha For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent in Crime No.225 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.225 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
1 / 4
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to money dispute between the first petitioner/A1 and the husband of the de facto complainant, the first petitioner along with other accused abused the defacto complainant's husband in filthy language, attacked him with a plastic pipe and also caused injuries to him. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case and in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that the petitioners has no bad antecedents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.
2 / 4
6. Considering the nature of allegations and the injured had been discharged from the hospital, the petitioners has no bad antecedents, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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 made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, 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 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. 3 / 4
SUNDER MOHAN J.
drl [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 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.
drl 04-04-2025 To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Police Station, Ranipet District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.
CRL OP No. 10059 of 2025 4 / 4