Manikandan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/06/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
1. Manikandan, S/o.Ponniah, D.No.8B, Nandha Gopal Samy Kovil 2nd Street, Cumbum, Theni District.
2. Sanjay, S/o.Krishnakumar, 24/25-W, Mathuluth Street, Cumbum, Theni District.
... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Cumbum South Police Station, Theni District.
(Cr.No.69 of 2025).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Veeravelpandi Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash , Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/5
PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.69 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused No.1, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.69 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that one Arunkumar is the friend of the defacto-complainant and her husband. He borrowed some amount from the defacto-complainant and he refused to repay the same. Whenever, she asked for repayment of the borrowed amount, he refused to pay the same. On 02.08.2024, at about 06.45p.m., at the instigation of Arunkumar, petitioners herein abused the complainant by using filthy language and physically attacked her. The deactocomplainant sustained severe injuries and admitted in hospital. Hence, a case has been registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was long-standing money dispute between the defacto-complainant and the first petitioner. The defacto-complainant allegedly cheated the first petitioner. The petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as 2/5
alleged by the prosecution. A false case has been foisted against the petitioners. These petitioners ares ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) would submit that due to money dispute between the defacto-complainant and the first petitioner, the petitioners abused the defacto-complainant using filthy language and brutally attacked her. She sustained severe injuries and admitted in hospital. Later, she was discharged from hospital, and hence he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, he fairly concedes that no previous case is pending against the petitioners.
5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the injured person discharged from hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions:
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory 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, Uthamapalayam on condition that the petitioner shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a 3/5
like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: (a) the petitioners 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 shall report before the respondent police on Monday and Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; (c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d) the petitioners 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 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] and; 4/5
(f) if the accused/petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.
sd/- 06/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
gvn TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHAMAPALAYAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI DISTRICT.
3. The Inspector of Police, Cumbum South Police Station, Theni District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9441 of 2025 Date :06/06/2025 MK/11.06.2025 5P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5