Manjunathan v. State By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Manjunathan

2. Prabuprasanth

3. Karthick

4. Kavin ... Petitioners Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District (Crime No.277 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.277 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners :

Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.05.2025 for the offences under Sections 126(2), 140(2), 191(2), 191(3), 127(2), 304(2), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.277 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seek bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had kidnapped the de facto complainant, tortured him and demanded money. Hence the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners herein are arrayed as A2, A3, A6 and A7. The petitioners are the room mates of the de facto complainant and they have helped the de facto complainant by way of giving money while he was searching for job and after getting employment, the de facto complainant started to ignore the petitioners and others. When the petitioners have asked to return the money, there was a dispute between them and on account which, the de facto complainant had lodged a complaint as if the petitioners and others have kidnapped him and demanded money. He also submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court and they are in custody from 23.05.2025. Hence he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting bail to the petitioners. He further submitted that due to jealousy towards the de facto 2/6

complainant, as he secured a job with handful salary before the petitioners, the petitioners kidnapped him and demanded money. The de facto complainant managed to escaped from them and lodged a complaint.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; 3/6

[c] the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

25.06.2025 ham 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.

4/6

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri

2. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Krishnagiri.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham 25.06.2025 1/2 6/6