Veeramani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Veeramani ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police Anamalai Police Station Coimbatore District.
Crime No. 108 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.108 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Dhasarathan For Respondent :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.03.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 109(1), 115(2), 351(3) and 238(b) of BNS and subsequently altered as Sections 103(1), 115(2), 1/7
238(b), 298(b) and 351(3) of BNS (u/sections 302, 323, 201, 295 and 506(2) of IPC, in connection with Crime No.108 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2025 at about 9.00 p.m, there was some wordy quarrel arose between the deceased and this petitioner and one Karuppasamy (A2) at their Odaikulam Banu Farms working site and the coaccused Karuppasamy assaulted the deceased with his hands and legs and this petitioner/A7 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe on his head and thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the case.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a friend of one Karuppasamy /A2 working in a farm along with other workers. In this case, the deceased was consumed alcohol and created nuisance while sleeping, and it was questioned by the petitioner and others and advised the deceased not to create disturbance and the same as objected by the deceased and others,due to which there was a quarrel arose between them. It was found that there was exchange of push and pull, in which the deceased had fell down. But, it 2/7
has been projected as if the petitioner attacked the deceased and he was taken to the hospital, where he died. The petitioner has got no bad antecedents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is suffering incarceration from 06.03.2025 and he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that in this case, the deceased along with his friend and the petitioner A2 were employed in a farm. On the date of occurrence, the deceased used to talk loudly with his friends. It was questioned by A1 and A2 and A1 assaulted the deceased with his hands and legs and this petitioner/A7 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe on his head. The post mortem report would reveal that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. Investigation is at the final stage and final report is yet to be filed. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/7
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for further interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; 4/7
[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
14.05.2025 uma Note :
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
5/7
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi
2. The Inspector of Police Anamalai Police Station Coimbatore District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
uma 14.05.2025.
7/7