Ayyanar v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.06.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI Ayyanar ... Petitioner / Accused No.7 Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.363 of 2025) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.363 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Dinesh, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 329(4), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.363 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a cracker pipe shop under the name and style of 'Rajeshwari Tube Works', employing about 40 workers. It is alleged that on 09.05.2025 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner, along with other accused persons, came to the defacto complainant's shop and demanded money for consuming alcohol. When the defacto complainant refused, the petitioner and the other accused persons allegedly assaulted him and his employees. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are said to have damaged the defacto complainant's vehicle an Ertiga car bearing registration number TN-84-R-4755 using stones and sticks. Furthermore, all the accused allegedly threatened the defacto complainant, demanding money, and warned that if he failed to comply, they would return to his office and continue to harass him. Hence, the case. 2/4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He would further submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are totally seven accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A7. He would further submit that A1 to A5 are still in custody. He would also submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He would also submit that the investigation is still pending, and therefore, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and also taking into consideration the date of occurrence and also taking note that A1 to A5 are still in custody, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

3/4

6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 18/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

PAL TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAKASI EAST POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10125 of 2025 Date :18/06/2025 PR/01.07 .2025 4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4