Vellivel v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO.10382 of 2025
1. Vellivel
2. Palanisamy Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Kongananpuram Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No. 152 of 2025).
Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.152 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Camyles Gandhi W.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 324(1) of BNS (Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 425 of IPC) in Crime No.152 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives; that on account of pathway dispute between them, a wordy quarrel arose; that thereby both parties exchanged blows; and that the petitioners and other accused assaulted the defacto complainant using wooden log and stones. Hence, this case. 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that on account of previous dispute, a wordy quarrel arose and both parties exchanged blows; that a case in counter has been registered by the respondent based on the complaint given by the petitioners against the defacto complainant and other accused; and that the 2/6
petitioners are ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation, and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives and on account of previous enmity related to a pathway dispute, both parties exchanged blows; that the petitioners have no bad antecedents; that there is a case in counter; and that the investigation is pending, hence opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the petitioners, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that there is a counter case, the petitioners have no bad antecedents, the injured person was discharged from the hospital and since custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant 3/6
anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.
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 Magistrate, Edappadi 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 everyday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence 4/6
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 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 07.04.2025 stn To
1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Edappadi.
2. The Inspector of Police, Kongananpuram Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No. 152 of 2025).
5/6
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
stn
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P. No.10382 of 2025 07.04.2025 6/6