Jaganathan v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Jaganathan S/O. Chandrasekar, 358, Vovval Thoppu, Kullamudiaynur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

Petitioner Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police Karumalaikoodal Police Station, Karumalaikoodal Salem District. Crime No. 256/2025.

Respondent PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest in Connection with the Crime No. 256 of 2025 pending on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Nalliyappan R For Respondent:

Mr.C.E.Pratap Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No.256 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The prosecution's case is that the defacto complainant's husband had borrowed Rs.90,000/- from the petitioner, which was repaid with interest within three months. However, on 18.05.2025, the petitioner allegedly demanded Rs.4,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, abused her with filthy language, and caused simple injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that due to previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, a false complaint has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any

conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that there is a money dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. He further submitted that there is case in counter and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that the petitioner has no bad antecedents. However, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the nature of allegations; and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties 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 conditions 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 Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify 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;

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [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] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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];

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

gbi 06-06-2025 Note: Issue Order copy on 06.06.2025.

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes 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.

To 1.State Rep by Inspector of Police Karumalaikoodal PoliceStation, Karumalaikoodal Salem District. Crime No. 256/2025.

2.The Judicial Magistrate II, Salem.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 16354 of 06-06-2025