N.Ravisankar v. State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR N.Ravisankar ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by Inspector of Police Andimadam Police Station Andimadam, Ariyalur District Crime No.205 of 2025 ... Respondent COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.205 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam 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), 351(2), 287 and 49 of BNS Act @ into U/s. 296(b), 351(2), 287 and 49 of BNS Act r/w. U/s.4 of Explosives Substances Act in Crime No.205 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto Complainant belongs to some political parties. There was some difference of opinion between them with regard to some allegation. The defacto Complainant posted some message in the Facebook which was objected by the Petitioner. The petitioner used filthy language against the defacto Complainant through a phone call and the bike belongs to defacto Complainant was also damaged. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 2/6

respondent police submitted that the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant using filthy language through mobile phone and caused damage to the defacto Complainant's bike. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides, nature of allegation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees Two thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.205 of 2025 and on such deposit, the petitioner is 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-II, Jayankondam, Ariyalur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for 3/6

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 petitioners fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand 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 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. [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 himself 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, he shall comply to the 4/6

directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioners 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 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

28.07.2025 shl M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

5/6

shl To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Jayankondam

2. The Inspector of Police Andimadam Police Station Andimadam, Ariyalur District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

28.07.2025 6/6