Latha v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Latha
...Petitioner/Accused -1
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police, K-7, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai District.
(Crime No.162 of 2025) ...
Respondent PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.162 of 2025 dated 18.03.2025 pending on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondent :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.162 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 329(4), 126(2), 296B, 115(2), 75(3) and 351(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3 of the Page No.1 of 5
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant borrowed money from the petitioner, since the defacto complainant did not repay the amount, the petitioner along with the co-accused abused her in filthy language and also compelled to sign certain property documents demanding Rs.20,00,000/-; that the petitioner and other accused also harassed the defacto complainant and her mother by using force, intimidation and physically assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that the complaint was lodged six year after the occurrence; that the petitioner, aged 56 years old lady and suffering medical ailments and that in any case, the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner is not required and he prayed for bail to the petitioner.
Page No.2 of 5
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that the investigation is pending, hence opposed the bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the nature of allegation, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and since further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore 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; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; Page No.3 of 5
[d] the petitioner 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 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 B.N.S.
15.04.2025 rkp Copy to:
1.The Inspector of Police, K-7, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai District.
2.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.4 of 5
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rkp 15.04.2025 Page No.5 of 5