Suresh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02/04/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

1. Suresh 2.Murugan @ Murugaiah 3.Solaikon 4.Mayalagu 5.Jeyaraman 6.Ayyanar 7.Rasu 8.Pandi 9.Senthil 10.Chinnasamy @ Seemaissamy 11.Kathar @ Kathar Bacha ... Petitioners/A1 to A11 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No. 41 /2025. ... Respondent/Complainant For petitioners : Mr. R.Pon Karthikeyan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S. Manoj Government Advoate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/7

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.41/2025 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 24.03.2025 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 to 11 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-police initially filed a case under Sections 194 of BNSS, 2023 subsequently altered into offence punishable under SEction 105 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

3. The case for the prosecution is that on 07.03.2025, "Vaadi Manjuvirattu" a traditional bull- chasing event was conducted as part of festival celebrations at Sri MuthalammanTemple, Seikkipatti and at that time, the father of the defacto complaint was attacked by the bull and sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

4. Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that 2/7

the petitioners are innocent person, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that after adhering the rules and regulations only the petitioners have conducted the Manju - Virattu, but, the deceased without following the rules entered into the field and invited the accident. He, however, submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that that the investigation of the case is still pending and therefore, at this stage, if the petitioners is granted pre-arrest bail, he may abscond and tamper with the evidence and also cause threat to the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

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

7. In view of the offence alleged against the petitioners, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society and therefore, 3/7

there is less possibility for absconding. Considering the same, and also considering the nature of allegation against the petitioners, and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves, this Court is inclined to grant an order of 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.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate. (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 shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity.

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, on all working days at 10.30 am until further orders. 4/7

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (vi) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the concerned Magistrate.

(viii) The petitioners shall not, directly, or indirectly, cause threat to the defacto complainant and tamper with the evidence. (ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate orders 5/7

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/- 02/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TRP TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

6/7

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

+1. CC to R.PONKARTHIKEYAN Advocate SR.No.3821 (I) DT.03/04/2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5552 of 2025 Date :02/04/2025 PR/29.04 .2025 7P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7