Murugan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26/03/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

1. Murugan

2. Pitchaimuthu

3. Arun Alias Arunkumar

4. Pasupathi

5. Sevugan

6. Sivagami Alias Sivakami

7. Perumal

8. Krishnan

9. Arun Alias Varun Raj

10. Thenmozhi

11. Kanimozhi

12. Vishnupriya

13. Rakkayee Alias Rakkayi

14. Krishnaveni

15. Oyyammal ... Petitioners/Accused 1, 2, 4,, 6 to 17 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu,, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No. 87 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant 1/6

For Petitioners : Mr. K. Periyasamy 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. 87 of 2025 on the file of the respondent - Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 18.03.2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners / Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 to 17 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent- police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2) and 118(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.87 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, on 16.02.2025, the petitioners herein waylaid the defacto complainant and also abused him in filthy language. Hence, the case.

2/6

4. Mr.K.Periyasamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that it is a case in counter and the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that this is case in counter and in the counter case, accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. He further submits that the investigation of the case is pending and therefore, at this stage, if the pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioners, they may cause threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

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

7. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society. Therefore, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the same and also considering the fact that there was some property dispute between the parties, which belongs to the Government and taking note of the fact that the accused persons have already been granted bail in the counter case, this Court is of the considered opinion 3/6

that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest or in the event of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. (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, Melur, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity. (iii) The petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent-police daily at 10.00 am until further orders.

(iv) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(v) The petitioners 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 4/6

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (vi) The petitioners shall also not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and tamper with evidence. (vii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(viii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners 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].

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

sd/- 26/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

5/6

TRP TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5082 of 2025 Date :26/03/2025 PP/SAR. /28.04.2025/6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

6/6