Karthickraja v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04/06/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI

1. Karthickraja S/o.Nagarajan 110/14, Indracolony Street, Keelakaduvetti, Tirunelveli District.

2. Ananth, S/o.Kumaravel, No.166, Adhithiravidar Street, Poolam, Moondradaippu, Tirunelveli District. ..Petitioners/ Accused No.1&2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Moondradaipu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.221 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.R.Mohanasundaram Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.221 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused Nos.1&2, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296 (b), 351(3) of BNS Act altered into 115(2), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS Act and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, 2002 and Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act, 75 of JJ Act in Crime No.221 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are law students. Prior to the alleged occurrence, the second petitioner picked up quarrel with the defactocomplainant's grandfather and tried to assault him. In this connection, the defactocomplainant preferred a complaint before the respondent police. Due to which, the petitioners herein on 19.05.2025, abusing the defacto-complainant and his family members outside their house. At that time the first petitioner pulled the hair of the defacto-complainant and the 2nd petitioner assaulted the defacto-complainant. Hence, the case.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioners are in custody from 20.05.2025 nearly 15 days. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that these petitioners and the defacto-complainant are the neighbours, due to misunderstanding, the petitioners quarrelled with the defacto-complainant and her family members and attacked them and they sustained simple injuries. The injured persons were discharged from hospital. There is no previous case against these petitioners. However, he objected to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that there is no previous case against the petitioners and the injured persons are discharged from hospital and considering the fact that petitioners/accused Nos.1&2 are remanded into judicial custody on 20.05.2025, taking into consideration of the period of incarceration. This court is inclined to 3/6

grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and on further conditions that :- [a] 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 shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each to the credit of Crime No.221 of 2025 and on such deposit being made, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioners;

[c] The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. If the petitioners changes their residential address, they shall report the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri; [d] the petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. 4/6

[f] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

sd/- 04/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / 04/06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

GVN TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANGUNERI.

2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 5/6

3. THE SUPERINDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOONDRADAIPU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9242 of 2025 Date :04/06/2025 PR/04.06 .2025 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6