← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/16776/2025granted

Purushothaman v. State Rep By, Inspector Of Police

2025-06-19Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Purushothaman ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by Inspector of Police J1-Saidapet Police Station Chennai District.

Crime No.42 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Srinivasan For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 303(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 132 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is his contention that he was arrested in Crime No.37 of 2025 by the Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai on 06.02.2025. The present case is said to have occurred on 03.02.2025. The petitioner was arrested and he was in judicial custody from 06.02.2025 till 29.05.2025 and he has been granted bail. The apprehension of the petitioner is that on 27.03.2025, an arrest memo was served to the petitioner's son referring to the Crime No.42 of 2025 but no PT warrant was executed. It is his further contention that with regard to case property in Crime No.42 of 2025, the same has been recovered and shown recovered in Crime No.37 of 2025 and it is for the respondent police to contact the Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai and inform about the recovery of the property in the present case.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that in this case, the respondent police had approached the Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai for the case property in the above case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the 2/6

materials available on record.

5. On perusal of the confessional statement in Crime No.37 of 2025 confirms that the case property in Crime No.42 of 2025 has been referred to in the confession. Though the arrest memo was served on 27.03.2025, no PT warrant was executed.

6. In view of the above, 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 IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet 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, and on proof of payment of deposits, 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 3/6

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 everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [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 4/6

Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; [j] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

19.06.2025 nr To

1. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet 2.Inspector of Police J1-Saidapet Police Station Chennai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

nr 5/6

19.06.2025 6/6