P.Chidambaram (Rank Not Known) v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR P.Chidambaram Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Virukambakkam Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.172/2025).

Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 172 / 2025 on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondent(s):

M/s. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Ga (crl. Side) For R1

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under 109 of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.172 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The prosecution alleges that the respondent police arrested the petitioner's brother on 23.05.2025 and detained him illegally. This case arises from an incident on 16.05.2025 where Manibala was injured in a quarrel with a taxi driver, and the police are investigating to identify the accused. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the respondent police is trying to fix the petitioner in the case, since the petitioner's house is nearby, where the said Manibala found lying on the road and the petitioner's car is parking infront of the petitioner's house in the road. The petitioner is not a taxi driver and never had any quarrel with anyone on the said 16.05.2025 night. The petitioner went to his native on 20.05.2025

for vacation. Therefore, petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and taking note of the nature of the allegations and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XXIII-MM, Saidapet,

Chennai, 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] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] 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;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m. For a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;;

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

gbi 08-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Virukambakkam Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.172/2025).

2.The XXIII-MM, Saidapet, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 15943 of 08-07-2025