Vellai Ajith @ Vidhyanantham v. State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Vellai Ajith @ Vidhyanantham Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No. 166 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 166 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Vasudevan Bramalingam For Respondent(s):

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS 2023 and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.166 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant's son Peter Mohan loved Kayathri who is the sister of the petitioner, both married on 14.05.2025 at Puthiragounddampalayam Murugan temple and thereafter appeared before the respondent police on 16.05.2025 and the police sent them to the house of the defacto complainant, since both are major. The further allegation is that on 16.05.2025 at about 23.00 hrs, the petitioner, his mother and his brother came to the house of the defacto complainant, scolded in filthy words. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he beat with hands on back of the defacto complainant and pushed her and also showed stone and threatened to kill the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false and that in any case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and sought of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are fourteen previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side; nature of allegation; and since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the The Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Salem on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 said Magistrate, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent everyday at 10:30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and

the petitioner 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

14-07-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No. 166 of 2025) 2.Te Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

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

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.

gbi CRL OP No. 18555 of 14-07-2025