Muthuselvan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/05/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL Muthuselvan ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.115 of 2025).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023 PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.115 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 petitioner on 05.05.2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant bail.

2. The petitioner / Accused No.2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.115 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was regularly making conversation with a woman through the GR App. On 21.04.2025, when the defacto complainant went to meet the woman, six accused persons, who were hiding at the location, surrounded him. They transferred Rs.700/- from the mobile phone of the defacto complainant to their phone via G-Pay, abused him in filthy language, slapped him, recorded the incident on video, and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. They also threatened to upload the video to the internet if he failed to pay the amount. Thereafter, the accused snatched his mobile phone and his bike. Hence, the present case.

4. Mr.N.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an innocent person, that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He, however, 2/6

submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.04.2025. He therefore prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the stolen properties have been recovered from the petitioner herein. He further submits that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he will commit the similar offence again. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

6. Heard on both sides and perused the records.

7. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2025. In view of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, and taking note of the fact that the stolen properties have been recovered from the petitioner herein, this Court is of the opinion that further custody of the petitioner is not necessary for the Investigating Agency in this case. Further, the petitioner has permanent residence, and hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the same, and also considering the period of incarceration, and with a view to give one more 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: 3/6

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aathur, Dindigul District;

(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, Aathur, Dindigul District, 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, Aathur, Dindigul District; (iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-Police daily at 09.00 a.m., and 05.30 p.m.

evidence;

(viii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses; and (ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aathur, Dindigul District, 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].

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

sd/- 08/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TSG TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AATHUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

5/6

3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SUB JAIL, DINDIGUL.

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINNALAPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8447 of 2025 Date :08/05/2025 HPS/12.05.2025 /6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6