← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/15043/2026granted

Veerapandian v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

2026-06-29Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Veerapandian ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 106.

[Crime No.104 of 2025] ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.104 of 2025 pending before the respondent police. For Petitioner:

For Intervenor:

Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj Mr.V.J.Arul Raj For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 296(b), 308(2), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 104 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, entered the shop of the de facto complainant, threatened him to extend a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- by selling his house, and also attempted to cause hurt to him. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are eight accused in total and the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He further submits that the petitioner recently underwent bypass surgery on 11.05.2026, having been hospitalised from 08.05.2026 to 20.05.2026. He contends that any custodial arrest at this stage would seriously exacerbate the petitioner's health condition. He also submits that although there are allegations of extortion, no injuries were sustained by any individual. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner has five previous cases registered against him. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in most of the previous cases. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced the judgments in C.C. No. 4118 of 2010 and

C.C. No. 4539 of 2010, and further stated that one case was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 16036 of 2022. He adds that the only pending FIR relates to political activity arising out of his participation in an agitation concerning the Sterlite incident.

6. The learned counsel for the intervenor submits that the intervenor and the petitioner were well known to each other. He further submits that the intervenor had sought the petitioner's assistance to sell a piece of land. However, instead of facilitating the sale, the petitioner demanded brokerage and extorted a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-. In this connection, the petitioner entered the premises of the de facto complainant and issued serious life threats. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. Though there are allegations of criminal antecedents against the petitioner, a perusal of the records reveals that most of the previous cases have ended in acquittal. Furthermore, from the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution and the intervenor, the transaction appears to have originated from the assistance sought by the intervenor for the sale of land. Considering that the petitioner underwent bypass surgery requiring constant medical care, and was

hospitalised from 08.05.2026 to 20.05.2026, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this length of time. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

29-06-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

2.The Inspector of Police, K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 106.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 29-06-2026 (2/2)