Veeramanikannan v. The State Rep.By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP No. 36010 of 2025 Veeramanikannan Petitioner(s) Vs The State, Rep. by Inspector of Police Mangalampet Police Station, Cuddalore District Crime No.246 of 2025.
Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.246 of 2025 pending on the file of respondent police For Petitioner(s):
M/s.Radha Pandian For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act (TNPHW), 2002 in connection with the case in Crime No.246 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and defacto complainant are neighbours. The petitioners attacked the defacto complainant arising out of a land dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent; that there exists a land dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant; that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the custodial interrogation is not required in this case. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that there exists a land dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and no previous cases are pending against the petitioner, investigation is pending and opposed to grant A.B. to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the nature of allegations, the relationship and the land dispute between the parties; no previous cases are pending against the petitioner and since the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), 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 conditions that: [a] the petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks; [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 B.N.S.
30-12-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Jeni Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order
when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.The Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police Mangalampet Police Station, Cuddalore District 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
P.DHANABAL J.
Jeni CRL OP No. 36010 of 2025 30-12-2025
CRL OP No. 36010 of 2025 P.DHANABAL, J.
This Criminal Original Petition is posted today under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the order dated 30.12.2025, in paragraph No.7, the satisfaction Court was wrongly mentioned as Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, instead of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam and therefore, prays for appropriate corrections.
3. Since this is a typographical error, Registry is directed to replace paragraph 7 as follows:
"7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), 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 conditions that: ....................."
4. Registry is also directed to communicate this order to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhachalam, and issue fresh order copy. 03.02.2026 mtl
P.DHANABAL, J.
mtl CRL OP No. 36010 of 2025 03.02.2026