Muniyandi Allies Muniyasamy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/02/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL Muniyandi @ Muniyasamy ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Y. Othakadai Police Station, Madurai.

(In Crime No. 481 of 2024).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrapandi For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 481 of 2024 on the file of the respondentPolice. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2025 1/4

under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 288, 115(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.481 of 2024, on the file of the respondentpolice

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2024, during funeral procession of the defacto complainant's uncle, the petitioner, along with other accused persons in this case, exploded crackers. When it was questioned by the defacto complainant and his brother, there was a wordy quarrel. At that time, the other accused persons threw the crackers on the defacto complainant's brother. Due to this enmity, the petitioner's brother attacked the defacto complainant with Aruval, which caused injury in left thigh and left palm of the defacto complainant. Hence, this case.

4. Mr.V.Chandrapandi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further submits that due to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. 2/4

5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that the petitioner has nine previous cases. He further submits that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 14.12.2024 and discharged on 28.12.2024. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

6. The petitioner has nine previous cases. Considering the same and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the bad antecedents of the petitioner and the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and also considering the facts that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case and there is a chance to make threat to the defacto complainant, this Court is of the view that granting an order of pre-arrest bail is likely to result the petitioner in committing similar offence.

7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 25/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / /03/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

3/4

APD TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Y. OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3565 of 2025 Date :25/02/2025 SS/SKN/SAR- /10/03/2025/ 4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4