← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9884/2025partly allowed

Dinesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu

2025-06-16Honourable Mr Justice P.Vadamalai6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/06/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Dinesh, S/o.Veerasamy 2.Thangamani, S/o.Malayalan ... Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station, Karur, Karur District.

(Crime No.130 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners :

Mr.B.Vinoth Kumar, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/6

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.130 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 118

(1) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.130 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant went to a TASMAC bar to consume liquor. At that time, the petitioners allegedly abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and are in no way connected with the alleged occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that A1 assaulted the de-facto complainant with a beer bottle, while A2 abused him in filthy language. Due to the assault, the injured sustained a head injury and was discharged from the hospital on 10.06.2025. He further submitted that insofar as A1 2/6

is concerned, there are three previous cases against him, whereas, in the case of A2, there are no previous cases. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the specific overt act against the 1st petitioner/A1, and also considering the fact that there are three previous cases against the 1st petitioner/A1, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. However, considering the limited overt act against the 2nd petitioner/A2, and also considering the fact that there are no previous cases against the 2nd petitioner/A2, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Karur on condition that the 2nd petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Karur and on further conditions that:

3/6

(a) the 2nd petitioner 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 2nd petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. In the event of any change in his residential address, the 2nd petitioner shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur;

(c) the 2nd petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

(d) the 2nd petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e) the 2nd petitioner 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 2nd petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 2nd petitioner 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 thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under 4/6

Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the 1st petitioner and allowed as against the 2nd petitioner. sd/- 16/06/2025 / 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 NO.I, KARUR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KARUR DISTRICT.

3.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station, Karur, Karur District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.B.VINOTHKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-6438[I] dated 18/06/2025 )

ORDER

IN 5/6

CRL OP(MD) No.9884 of 2025 Date :16/06/2025 MK/27.06.2025 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6