Kalaivani v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP No. 11222 of 2025 Kalaivani Petitioner Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District.
(Cr.No.75 of 2025) Respondent For Petitioner:
Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervener : Mr.A.Murthy PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent in Crime No.75 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 324(2), 329(3) of BNS r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.75 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto 1 / 4
complainant are close relatives. Due to a land dispute, the petitioner along with other accused had damaged the defacto complainant's property worth about Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false; that the allegations do no warrant custodial interrogation and hence prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the intervener vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that there are five previous cases against the petitioner and she is on bail in those cases.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the nature of allegations; the fact that the petitioner is a lady and that the petitioner is on bail in previous cases, and since the 2 / 4
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Panrutti on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
3 / 4
SUNDER MOHAN J.
drl [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner 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 24-04-2025 To
1. The Inspector of Police, Panruti Police Station, Cuddalore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
CRL OP No. 11222 of 2025 4 / 4