Lakshmanan Pattan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated : 07.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.Lakshmanan Pattan 2.Mariyappan 3.Sasikala 4.Balasundari ... Petitioners vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
(In Cr.No.17 of 2025) ... Respondent PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police For Petitioners :Mr.S.Gokul Raj For Respondent :Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor :Mr.Titus ***** 1/8
O R D E R
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(1), 296(b) and 69 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.17 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are relatives and the first petitioner by giving false promise of marrying her, had physical relationship with the de-facto complainant and the other petitioners, who are the father, mother and sister of the first petitioner, have helped the first petitioner in cheating the de-facto complainant. The petitioners have also abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the 2/8
petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that first petitioner by giving false promise of marrying the de-facto complainant, had physical relationship with the de-facto complainant and the other petitioners, who are the father, mother and sister of the first petitioner, have also abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.The learned Counsel for the intervenor submitted that the first petitioner has cheated the de-facto complainant and had physical relationship with her by giving false promise of marrying her and the other petitioners have also supported the activities of the first petitioner and abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.This Court, vide order, dated 13.08.2025, had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Court and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediator on 25.08.2025. In 3/8
the Mediation report, dated 09.10.2025, it is stated that mediation completed and no agreement was reached.
7.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the mediation was failed and also the serious allegations made against the first petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner.
8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the allegations made against the petitioners 2 to 4, this Court is inclined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 4 with certain conditions.
9.Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District, on condition that the petitioners 2 to 4 shall execute a bond for a sum of 4/8
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: (a) the petitioners 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b)the petitioners 2 to 4 shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District. In the event of any change in their residential addresses, the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District;
(c)the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police, as and when required for interrogation; (d) the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; 5/8
(e) the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 2 to 4 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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; (g) if the accused/petitioners 2 to 4 thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.
07.11.2025 cmr 6/8
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr 07.11.2025 8/8