Ragul v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Ragul ... petitioner Vs.

State rep. by Inspector of Police S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai Crime No.212 of 2025.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Crime No.212 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent police. For petitioner :

Mr.G.Magesh Raj For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296, 309(4), 311, 125, 324

(2) and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.212 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the coaccused, demanded mamool from the defacto complainant and when he refused to give money, he abused and threatened him at knife point. He also threw the fruits on the road and threatened the public with stones who tried to help the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that A1 was arrested on 21.04.2025 and produced before the Magistrate on the same day itself. Since the petitioner was present with his friend A1, at the scene of occurrence, he is also arrayed as an accused. Hence, the above case has been falsely foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner is an innocent person. He also submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the 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, while opposing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner along with coaccused had demanded mamool from the defacto complainant at knife point and damaged the fruits throwing on the road and threatened the public with stones and 2/6

The petitioner along with A1 abused and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences at knife point and A1 is said to have taken Rs.2000/- from the pocket of the defacto complainant.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering that no prima facie case was made out as against the petitioner and no statement of witness was recorded to prove that he has committed offence and the petitioner himself is ready to abide by any condition, 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-I, Alandur, 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 3/6

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; [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.

03.06.2025 gv 4/6

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.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

5/6

gv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Alandur 2.The Inspector of Police S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

03.06.2025.

6/6