← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/12945/2025granted

Kannan v. State By Its Inspector Of Police,

2025-04-28Honourable Mr Justice Sunder Mohan8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. KANNAN S/o. Arokkiyasamy, No.2/ 532, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Molachur, Kanchipuram District.

2. Velmurugan S/o. Annappan, Kaliyamman Kovil Street, Palla Molachur, Molachur, Kanchipuram District.

3. Vijaymari @Kutty@Mari S/o. Ponnusamy, No.2/ 525, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Palla Molachur, Molachur, Kanchipuram District.

4. Ajithkumar @ Gokul S/o. Narayanan, No.614, Annai Kasthuribai Street, Palla Molachur, Molachur, Kanchipuram District

5. Sundaram S/o. Duraisamy, No.2 I 5II, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Palla Molachur, Molachur, Kanchipuram

District.

6. Rukkumani @Rukku W/o. Kannan, No.2/ 532, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Molachur, Kanchipuram District

7. Sudha W /o.Velmurugan, No.O1, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Molachur, Kanchipuram District.

8. Chithra W/o.Appun, No. 2 I 523, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Palla Molachur, Sunguvarchathiram, Kanchipuram District

9. Susikumar S/o.Kittu, No.492, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Palla Molachur, Sunguvarchathiram, Kanchipuram District Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State by its INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Sunguvarchathiram Police station, Sunguvarchathiram, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No. 634 of 2024) Respondent(s)

PRAYER To enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 634 of 2o24 on the file of the Respondent and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K. G. Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s):

Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(4), 118(1), 305(a) and 351(3) of BNS (Section 146, 448, 324, 380 and 506(ii) of IPC) in Crime No.634 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 15.09.2024, petitioner committed theft of valuables belonging to the defacto complainant besides assaulting 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; and that in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required and sought anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there is a counter case against the defacto complainant on the complaint of the petitioners.

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. The complaint was lodged in the year 2024. The petitioners have not been arrested yet. There is a counter case. Considering the relationship between the parties and the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District, on

condition that the petitioner 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 appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. [d]the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[f] 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 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];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

28-04-2025 Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State by its INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Sunguvarchathiram Police station, Sunguvarchathiram, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No. 634 of 2024).

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

SUNDER MOHAN J.

jai CRL OP No. 12945 of 28-04-2025