Dhanam v. State Rep. By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
CRL OP NO. 15059 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP NO. 15059 of 2025 1.Dhanam 2.Yasotha 3.Shanmugam Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No.144 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.144 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Deepak Kumar C For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 196 (1), 352, 353 (1), 353 (3) of BNS in Crime
No.144 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant is working as a Tasmac Supervisor. On 20.03.2025, at about 12.40 p.m., petitioners along with other accused A1, who is the District President of BJP Political Party were came to the aforesaid Tasmac Shop, and sat down outside in front of the shop with slogan boards and mumbled as against the Tamil Nadu Government. Further they pasted some wall posters in front of the said shop. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and since custodial interrogation
of the petitioners is not required, this Court is inclined to grant 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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;
[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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
23-06-2025 ep To
1. State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No.144 of 2025) 2.The JUdicial Magistrate No.1 Mettur G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ep
CRL OP NO. 15059 of 2025 23.06.2025