Susil Kumar Jena v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Susil Kumar Jena ... Petitioner Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, 1.
The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.
The Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station, SH-4A, Sanipoondi Kilpennathur Avalurpet Road, Tiruvannamalai - 604 601.
... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to direct the third respondent not to harass the petitioner in the guise of investigation. For Petitioner : Mr.Leeban Arivalagan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5
O R D E R
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third respondent Police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.
When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on instructions, submitted as follows:- 2.1. On 01.04.2025, one Venkatesan lodged a complaint alleging that on 31.03.2025, at about 7.15 pm., when his father was walking on the Tiruvannamalai-Tindivanam Road, he was hit by an unknown vehicle and he sustained injuries. Though he was taken to the hospital and was undergoing treatment, he died without responding to treatment on 01.04.2025 at 12.20 p.m. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.103 of 2025 was registered for the offences under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the BNS, 2023.
2.2. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage obtained from the toll gate revealed that a car bearing registration No.KA 03 NK 2/5
4916 (Skoda Kushaq) was the offending vehicle and the petitioner, a resident of Bangalore, is the owner of the vehicle. 2.3. Pursuant to the summons issued, the petitioner appeared for enquiry on 21.09.2025, during which, he stated that though he is the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle had been driven by his friend Regina. He also agreed to produce her for further enquiry. However, subsequently the petitioner neither produced the said vehicle nor brought his friend and did not attend enquiry. Therefore, the respondent contacted the petitioner through the jurisdictional Police at Whitefield, Bangalore, and brought him to the respondent police station. After enquiry, the petitioner will be produced before the Court as per law. The offending vehicle has not been produced till date for the purpose of investigation. 2.4.
Only after collecting the preliminary materials regarding the involvement of the petitioner, he was fixed as an accused. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Police are harassing the petitioner and forcing him to admit that he had committed the offence.
4.
Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that the offences alleged are bailable in nature and the respondent Police are directed to proceed in accordance with law, without harassing the petitioner.
19.11.2025 ham To 1.
The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town, Tiruvannamalai - 606 604.
The Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station, SH-4A, Sanipoondi Kilpennathur Avalurpet Road, Tiruvannamalai - 604 601.
4.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
ham 19.11.2025 5/5