Arokiya Anthony Thanaraj @ Dhanraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.05.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Arokiya Anthony Thangaraj @ Dhanraj ... Petitioner Vs The State of TamilNadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate(Crl.side) Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus (for intervenor in Crl.MP(MD)No.3104/25) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.574 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 191(2), 296(b), 318(4) & 351(3) of BNS in Cr.No.574 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that during the tenure of the petitioner as President of a church, he had received a sum of Rs.5,78,000/- for festival of the church. However, he had not produced any account statement for the said expenditure. When the same was questioned by the the defacto complainant, the petitioner had attacked the defacto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not involve in any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is an innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount of Rs.5,78,000/-. However, there is no account statement for the said sum that had been spent for the festival and the 2/6

petitioner is having 5 sovereigns of gold jewel belonged to God Madha and hence, they opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner is the then President of a church and he had received a sum of Rs.5,78,000/- for the church festival. But the amount has not been utilised. Therefore, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, to show his bonafide, is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of Crime No.574 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the petitioner, to show his bonafide, is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.50.000/-, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.574 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram. On such deposit,the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before 3/6

the Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each 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 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 daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

[c] The concerned Court is directed to deposit the said amount (Rs.50,000/-) in a fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Bank till the conclusion of trial. [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] 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 petitioners released on bail by 4/6

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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS 2023.

sd/- 09/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SM TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RADHAPURAM.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOODANKULAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

.

+1. CC to M/S.V.RAJIV RUFUS Advocate SR.No.5418(I)DT.09/05/2025 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2540 of 2025 Date :09/05/2025 PR/21.05 .2025 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6