Pushparani v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Pushparani

2. Suresh Karna

3. Vasanthakumar

4. Sebastian

5. Solomon Gnanaraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by.

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station, Vellore .

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.200 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper, and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Praveennath For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(3) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in connection with the case in Crime No.200 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners jointly entered into the land reserved for allotment of depressed classes, started constructing a church and also illegally quarried sand from the Government land. When the Village Administrative Officer objected, the petitioners jointly threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint has been lodged.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that no previous cases have been registered against the petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the nature of offence and that no previous case is pending against the petitioners and at this point of time investigation might have been completed and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Katpadi on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (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 conditions 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 every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required;

[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 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 B.N.S.

13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rap

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvalam Police Station, Vellore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.DHANABAL, J.

rap 13-05-2026