Manikandan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/04/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL Manikandan ... Petitioner/Accused Rank not known Vs The State of Tamil Nadu,, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

(Crime No. 74 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 74 of 2025 on the file of the respondentPolice. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner / Accused (rank not known) apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.74 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-Police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2025, the vehicle of the defacto complainant was missing in the MMT Tinkering Shop. Hence, the case

4. Mr.S.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an innocent person, and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He, however, submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the stolen property has been recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, he may commit the similar offence once again. Hence, he vehemently opposes to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 2/6

6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that since the stolen property has been recovered from the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the Investigating Agency in this case. Further, the petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society, and therefore, there is less possibility for absconding, and with a view to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest or in the event of his surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with two sureties, each for a like sum of Rs.

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity; 3/6

(iii) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-Police weekly twice (i.e., on Monday and Friday) at 10.00 a.m., until further orders; (iv) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(v) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (vi) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District; (viii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence; and (ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 4/6

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.

Sd/- 29/04/2025 // True Copy // /2025 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS - I/ II / III /IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

TSG TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District.

2.Do Through, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil.

3.The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

CRL OP(MD) No.5070 of 2025 Date : 29/04/2025 KVL/26.05.2025 6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6