Raman v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.Raman

2. Lakshmanan Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police Roshanai Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No. 294 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.294 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Shimiyon Edwin M For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 318(4), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2),

351(2) of BNS r/w 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002, in connection with Crime No.294 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners/A2 & A3 are the relatives of A1. A1 developed a relationship with the defacto complainant and under the pretext of marriage, received a sum of Rs.7 lakhs and 12 sovereigns of gold from her. Later, he refused to marry the defacto complainant and did not return the money. Subsequently, A1, along with the petitioners, went to the house of the defacto complainant, abused her using filthy language, and assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, this case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are only the relatives of A1 and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 has been arrested and subsequently released on bail. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted

that totally there are three accused involved in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3. She further submitted that A1 has already granted bail and the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are only relatives of A1, and he was arrested, released on bail, though investigation in this case is pending, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions;

7.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 is made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tindivanam, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter 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. [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 269 BNS.

03-12-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State rep by The Inspector of Police Roshanai Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No. 294 of 2025.

2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tindivanam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 33068 of 03-12-2025