← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9584/2025allowed

Jeya Sakthi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-06-09Honourable Mr Justice P.Vadamalai5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09/06/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Jeya Sakthi, W/o.Mariappan 2.Mani Kandan, S/o.Kumaraguru ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.107 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/5

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.107 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 223 and 288 of BNS, 2023 r/w. Section 9 (B)(1)(a) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 in Crime No.107 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused is running a fireworks company under the name and style of "Chinna Thambi Firotech Fireworks company". Due to a lack of safety measures, the license of the said company was suspended on 10.04.2023. However, despite the suspension of the license, on 22.04.2025, when the de-facto complainant inspected the premises, it was found that the said company was operating with 17 employees. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is the owner and the 2nd petitioner is the manager of the said fireworks company. Originally, the license of the company was suspended on 10.04.2023 and subsequently renewed on 15.05.2025. The alleged occurrence took place on 22.04.2025. On that day, the company was opened only for cleaning work. 2/5

Therefore, a false case has been registered against the petitioners. He further submitted that no adverse remarks have been noted in the proceedings, dated 15.05.2025, issued by the licensing authority. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that when the de-facto complainant, along with her special team, visited the said company, the husband of the 1st petitioner closed the premises and left the spot after seeing the defacto complainant. He further submitted that nothing was recovered from the petitioners' factory. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that nothing was recovered from the petitioners' factory, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sattur on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or 3/5

to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Sattur and on further conditions 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 furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur;

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e) the petitioners 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 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

(g) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

sd/- 09/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

MKN TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURTNO.II, SATTUR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATTUR.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTUR TALUK POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S. JEGADEESAN M Advocate SR.No.6103 (I) DT.10/06/2025

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9584 of 2025 Date :09/06/2025 NM/13.06.2025 5P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5