← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8758/2025partly allowed

Vimalraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-05-14Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14-05-2025 PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR 1.Vimalraj 2.Jesu 3.Vannichi 4.Mariselvi ... Petitioners / A1 to A4 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, AWPS - Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.26 of 2024) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.P.Veerapandi For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the 1/5

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 of IPC and 296 (b), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.26 of 2024, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner, namely Vimalraj, and the de-facto complainant had cordial relationship with each other, and the 1st petitioner had promised to marry the de-facto complainant and had sexual relationship with her. Subsequently, he had refused to marry the victim girl. Hence, she had lodged a complaint earlier before the All Women Police Station, Sankarankovil and during enquiry, the 1st petitioner had given written undertaking that he will marry her after obtaining necessary certificates, but he fails to do so and subsequently, he had absconded from his native place. When the defacto complainant had tried to contact him, the 1st petitioner, along with his family members, had criminally intimidated her. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegation took place as early as in the year 2008, and the 1st petitioner has not cheated the de-facto complainant and also not promised to marry her. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police reported that since the 1st petitioner promised to marry the de-faco complainant and refused to marry her subsequently, the First Information Report 2/5

had been lodged against the 1st petitioner, along with his family members, who had criminally intimidated the de-facto complainant. Hence, he strongly opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations levelled as against the petitioners, and also considering the specific averments stated as against the 1st petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner, but I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as against the 1st petitioner and stands allowed as against petitioner Nos.2 to 4, and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen Thousand Rupees only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: (a) Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their 3/5

Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks;

(c) Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 14/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

4/5

mkn TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,SANKARANKOVIL.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AWPS - SANKARANKOVIL, TENKASI DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.P.VEERAPANDI, Advocate ( SR-5570[I] dated 16/05/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8758 of 2025 Date :14/05/2025 NBF/27.05.2025 5P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5