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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Aravindhan

2. Appasamy @ Kamaraj ... Petitioners/ Accused 1 & 2 Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Thirupathur Taluk Police Station, Thirupathur District.

(Crime No.188 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.188 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : M/s. E. Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr. R. Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ****** 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 118(1) of BND, 2023 (Under Section 294(b) and 324 of IPC) in Crime No.188 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's younger daughter and one Sindhu, who is the neighbour of the defacto complainant were working in a computer centre, which belongs to one Kamalakannan; that the said Kamalakannan developed a love affair with the defacto complainant's younger daughter; that thereafter, the defacto complainant arranged the marriage of his younger daughter to other person; that aggrieved over the same, the said Kamalakannan started sending photographs of him along with the defacto complainant's daughter to the defacto complainant's son-in-law's mobile phone; that while so, the defacto complainant enquired the said Sindhu regarding the relationship between his daughter and the said Kamalakannan, due to which a wordy quarrel arose between them; that thereby, the petitioners herein abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with a cricket bat and caused injuries to the defacto 2/6

complainant. Hence, this case.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they had never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; and that the petitioners are ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation, and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 in this case; that on account of previous enmity, the petitioners abused and assaulted the defacto complainant; that the petitioners have no bad antecedents; and that the investigation is pending, hence opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the 3/6

nature of allegation against the petitioners, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that the petitioners have no bad antecedents and since custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.

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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupattur on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stands automatically cancelled;

4/6

[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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] 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, they shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

5/6

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

stn [h] 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 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

19.06.2025 stn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate II, Tirupattur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thirupathur Taluk Police Station, Thirupathur District.

(Crime No.188 of 2025)

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 6/6