Tamilselvan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/06/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI Tamilselvan, S/o.Kulanthai, Vakkampatti, Dindigul.
..Petitioner/ Accused No.2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thaluk Police Station, Dindigul.
(Crime No.313 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.313 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/8
ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 189(2), 126 (2), 296(b), 132, 351(3) of BNS altered into sections 191(2), 189(2), 126(2), 296(b), 132, 351(3) of BNS 2023 and Section 3(1) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 in Crime No.313 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that On 27.05.2025, while the resident Hindus of Vakkampatti Village have conducted Hindu Deities Festival, the resident Christians of Vakkampatti stated that while crossing Hindu Deity Procession at the place situated in front of Vakkampatti Mariamathalenal Temple, they should not broadcast Hindu religious songs, firing of crackers and making any shouting, hence there arose dispute between the two parties and at about 8.00p.m. On the same day, the accused persons unlawfully assembled themselves and sat in the Dindigul to Batlagundu main road as a result they obstructed the transportation in the said road 2/8
and thereby it was caused much difficultly to the public. The police officials arrived at the spot and requested them to withdraw their road picket, the accused persons abused the police officials in filthy languages and threatened them with dire consequences by showing stones. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged occurrence, there existed dispute between two parties of Vakkampatti Village residents in respect of common pathway. On 27.05.2025, a dispute was arose between two parties that if specific community people celebrating festival, the Hindu Deity procession has not conducted the place situated in front of Mariamathalenal Temple, after that dispute while the Hindu people trying to make road obstruction, but that attempt was curtailed by the police officials. The petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. There was one counter case in Crime No.314 of 2025 is pending. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 04.06.2025 nearly 11 days. Hence, he seeks bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that on 3/8
27.05.2025, while the resident Hindus of Vakkampatti Village have conducted Hindu Deities Festival, the resident Christians of Vakkampatti stated that while crossing Hindu Deity Procession at the place situated in front of Vakkampatti Mariamathalenal Temple, they should not broadcast Hindu religious songs, firing of crackers and making any shouting, hence there arose dispute between the two parties and at about 8.00p.m. On the same day, the accused persons unlawfully assembled themselves and sat in the Dindigul to Batlagundu main road. The police officials were arrived at the spot and requested them to withdraw their road-roko, the accused persons abused the police officials in filthy languages and threatened them with dire consequences by showing stones and also damaged the police vehicle.
There are totally 22 accused persons involved in this case, this petitioner was arrayed at Accused No.2. At the instigation of this petitioner alone, group of people unlawfully assembled and conducted road-roko. The allegations are serious in nature, there was possibility of religion clash between the residents of Vakkampatti Village. There was one counter case in Crime No.314 of 2025 is pending. Hence, he strongly objected to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that in this case, it appears that there was dispute regarding 4/8
usage of pathway, there was one counter case in Crime No.314 of 2025 is pending before the respondent police, the petitioner/accused-2 remanded into judicial custody on 04.06.2025, taking into consideration of the period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul 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 petitioner shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.313 of 2025, without prejudice to his defence before the trial Court; and on such deposit being made, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner;
5/8
[c] The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contact number to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul. If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul; [d] the petitioner shall stay at Salem and he shall appear and sign before the Salem Town Police Station, daily twice at 10.30 a.m and 5.30p.m. until further orders.
[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 6/8
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/- 16/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / 16/06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
GVN TO
1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, DINDIGUL
2. DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TALUK POLICE STATION, DINDIUGL.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN POLICE STATION, SALEM.
6. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
7/8
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9980 of 2025 Date :16/06/2025 HPS/16.06.2025 /8P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8