Lakshmanan v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.29888 of 2025 Lakshmanan Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police K.V. Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.

Crime No.174 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.174 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.T.Jeyam For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 132, 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.174 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is a resident of Semmankuttai Village and, while the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) was on official duty, the petitioner waylaid the defacto complainant, abused her without any respect and threatened her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the petitioner prevented her from discharging her official duties. It is also alleged that after she submitted the field report in connection with retaining the petitioner's relatives, the petitioner, along with other accused, went to her office and threatened her. As the petitioner had been continuously threatening her, the present complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint lodged against the petitioner is a motivated one. He further

submitted that since the defacto complainant, who is the Village Administrative Officer, was accused of dereliction of duty and corrupt activities, a false complaint has been foisted upon the petitioner. Hence, he prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has been continuously threatening the Village Administrative Officer in the course of her official duties. He further submitted that the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in a public place and that the petitioner is already involved in three previous cases. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been continuously threatening the defacto complainant and preventing her from discharging her official duties and that the petitioner had bad

antecedents, this Court is of the view that granting anticipatory bail at this stage may embolden the petitioner to indulge in similar activities. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 04-11-2025 drl To 1.The Inspector of Police K.V. Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J., drl CRL OP NO.29888 of 2025 04.11.2025