P. Albert Soundarajan Pushparaj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/04/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL P.Albert Soundarajan PushpaRaj ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

Crime No. 54 of 2025.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Rajarajan, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 01.04.2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant bail.

2. The petitioner/Accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.03.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 191(2), 296(6) and 351

(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 r/w Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2025, at 18:00 hours, the defacto complainant, the Village Administrative Officer, approached the respondent-police alleging that on 16.03.2025, he received information that more than 10 unknown persons had indulged in a scuffle with the administrators of VR Poultry Farm. When he reached the spot, he noticed that the accused persons had dug a channel measuring 15 feet in length and 3 feet in depth in front of the carriage way around VR Poultry Farm, thereby causing damage to public property. Hence, the complaint.

4. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that 2/6

a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for granting bail to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that there is no previous case pending against him. He further submits that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he will commit similar offence and thereby damage the public property. Therefore, he vehemently opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

7. The petitioner was arrested and has been in judicial custody since 25.03.2025. The petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society. Hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the same and also considering fact that the petitioner is first offender and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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, Keeranur; 3/6

(ii) The sureties shall affix his 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, Keeranur, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity; (iii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur;

(iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-police weekly twice (ie., on every Monday and Friday) at 10.30 a.m, until further orders; (v) The petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond to be executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;

(vi) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; (vii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and (viii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, 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/- 03/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / 03/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

vsg To 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KEERANUR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT 3.The officer-in-charge, District Jail, Pudukottai.

4.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukottai District.

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

COPY TO:

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/s.M.RAJARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-3858[I] dated 03/04/2025 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6092 of 2025 Date :03/04/2025 MK/SAR /03.04.2025 6P/8C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6