Seenisamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19.06.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Seenisamy 2.P.Thangadurai 3.Aranjumani ... Petitioners / Accused Rank Not Known Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Puliangudi Police Station, Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.188 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.188 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners :
Mr.P.Murugesan, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/4
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 @ Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.188 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a case was registered against the petitioners in connection with the recovery of 25 grams of gold jewellery. The deceased, Stellamary, had committed the offence of theft and had availed a loan from the Magalir Suya Udhavi Kuzhu, which she failed to repay. Subsequently, she is said to have committed suicide. The petitioners deny having made any false complaint against the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased, Stellamary, had administered anaesthesia tablets to the aged mother of the 1st and 2nd petitioners and looted her gold jewellery. Based on this incident, the petitioners lodged a complaint against the deceased. Although a case was registered pursuant to that complaint, no summons was ever issued to the deceased. However, for reasons best known to her, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the case. 2/4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He would further submit that there no previous cases against the petitioners. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the deceased committed suicide under the pressure given by the accused persons regarding theft of gold jewellery. He would further submit that the deceased left a suicide note mentioning the petitioners' names as the reason for committing suicide. He would further submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He would also submit that the investigation is still pending, and therefore, he strongly opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioners and also taking note the suicide note left by the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
3/4
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 19/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
PAL TO 1 ADDITIONAL MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, SIVAGIRI, TENKASI.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TENKASI DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIANGUDI POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.7671 of 2025 Date :19/06/2025 NM/04.07.2025/ 4P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4