Ramesh v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP No. 10184 of 2025 1.P.Ramesh 2.R.Kamsala 3.F.Amaladass @ Viji 4.S.Manikandan @ Mani 5.S.Manikandan @ Bullet Mani 6.P.Venkadesan Petitioners Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

(Cr.No.39 of 2025) Respondent For Petitioners:

Mr.Vimal B.Crimson For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr.R.Mohan For Intervener :

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the 1 / 6

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 324(2) of BNS in Crime No.39 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of a land dispute, the petitioners along with other accused persons, abused and attacked the defacto complainant with a wooden log and caused injuries to him. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent; that they have been falsely implicated in this case; that the said land is still in possession of the first petitioner; that the petitioners had also lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant in Crime No.40 of 2025; and in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required and sought anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders and hence opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the 2 / 6

petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that there is a counter case; that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is a previous case against the first petitioner and there are previous cases against the second petitioner registered in the year 2024; and they are on bail in those cases.

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.

6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that there is a counter case, the injured has been discharged from the hospital, the petitioners are on bail in previous cases and since, custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magi Court, Kilpennathur, on condition that the 3 / 6

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 first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders and the second petitioner, being a lady, shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

[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 4 / 6

appropriate action against the petitioners 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 16-04-2025 To

1. The Inspector of Police, Vettavalam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5 / 6

SUNDER MOHAN J.

drl CRL OP No. 10184 of 2025 16.04.2025 6 / 6