G.Prakash v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR G.Prakash ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thakkolam Police Station, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.Not Known of 2025)
...Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.Not Known of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Takkolam Police Station. For Petitioner :
M/s.G.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 308(2), 326(b) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 1/5
in Crime No.Not known of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent Police on 18.06.2025 has foisted a false case in Crime No.181 of 2025 against one Chidambaram on the basis of the complaint given by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat, Takkolam, the defacto complainant herein and had arrested the said Chidambaram, since he had questioned the irregularities committed by the defacto complainant. The petitioner belongs to Bharatiya Janata Party and he has also raised some objection on the functioning of de-facto complainant. Since large number of poles were posted in their village, yearly Temple festival could not be conducted. The petitioner insisted upon conducting the Temple festival since there was a commotion.
Further the petitioner has made broad arrangements welcoming the Home Minister to the CSF Camp at Takkolam which has become irritant to the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant has been using the Police officials to silence the petitioner politically. The police officials had entered the house of the petitioner on 18.06.2025 when his pregnant wife and two children were alone and they were threatened. The Police officials came in search of the petitioner.
hands of the respondent police. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent persons and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there is no case against the petitioner and he further confirmed with the Police officials who are present before this Court as to whether any complaint on the above said allegations is pending before them. However, the Police authorities submitted that there is no such case pending against the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that there is no case pending with regard to the 3/5
aforesaid allegations as against the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
04.07.2025 rap To
1. The Judicial Magistrate - II, Arakkonam
2. The Inspector of Police, Thakkolam Police Station, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.Not Known of 2025)
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rap 04.07.2025 5/5