Karuppannan v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.
Karuppannan 2.
Manickam 3.
Appusamy 4.
Sekar 5.
M.Aanaigounder 6.
Mohan 7.
Raju @ Raji ... Petitioners Vs.
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thevoor Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No.145 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.145 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners :
Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent :
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 Sections 329(4), 132 & 300 of BNS in Crime No.145 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail. Page No.1 of 4
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to the dispute concerning administration of Arulmigu Ayyanarappan Temple, the accused had prevented the de facto complainant and others in performing their duty and caused nuisance while performing pooja. Hence the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and due to previous enmity, a false complaint has been given against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the nature of allegation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7. 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 made ready, before the learned Page No.2 of 4
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond each 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] 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 report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond during during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 Page No.3 of 4
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
ham 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 269 of B.N.S.
23.06.2025 ham To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sankari.
2. The Inspector of Police, Thevoor Police Station, Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.4 of 4