Magendran v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
1. MAGENDRAN S/o.Duraikannu,
2. AMBIGA W/o.Magendiran, Both are residing at, No.383/78H, Gandhi Nagar, Sethuvalai, Anaicut Taluk, Vellore District.
3. AKILA W/o.Rajani Velu, No.3/336, Indira Nagar, Kambisholai, Coonoor, Berhatti, Nilgiris District Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime.No.174/2025) Respondent(s) 1/6
PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime.No.174/2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s):
Mr. E Kannadasan For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(4), 115(2), 296(b) of BNS 2023 r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Sec.2 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.174 of 2025 on the file of respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to property dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, they said to have trespassed into his house, pulled her sari and removed the entrance door and also threatened her with dire consequences, wherein the defacto complainant sustained injury and admitted in hospital for treatment. Hence, the present complaint was lodged against the petitioners. 2/6
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ranked as A1 to A3 and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the occurrence and they will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that on the date of occurrence, due to a property dispute, the petitioners along with other accused trespassed into her house and assaulted her and also threatened her, as a result of which, she sustained injury and admitted in hospital for treatment and now she was discharged from hospital. He would also submit that if they are released on anticipatory bail, they will tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed and now injured discharged from hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
3/6
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.V, Vellore, and the petitioners shall also execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which, one surety must be a blood surety, 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] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the 1 st petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 for the period of three months and 2 nd and 3 rd petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
4/6
[e] 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]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
12-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To
1. Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore.
2. The Inspector of Police, Pallikonda Police Station, Vellore Dt.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5/6
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rpp CRL OP No. 24966 of 12-09-2025 6/6