← Library
Madras High Court/11170/2025allowed

Ajith Kumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Singampunari

2025-07-03Honourable Mr Justice P.Vadamalai7 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Ajith Kumar, S/o.Murugesan

2. Palaniammal, W/o.Murugesan,

3. Chitra, W/o.Sankar

4. Prema, W/o.Ramesh

5. Ramesh, S/o.Karuppaiah

6. Vijay, S/o.Nagarajan .. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.142 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant 1/7

For Petitioners :

Mr.C.Susikumar Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.142 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 329(4), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS of 2023 & Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.142 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant had two children. Her daughter namely Abinaya has completed Nursing and working in a Private hospital at Coimbatore. The first petitioner who is the distance relative of the defacto-complainant, proposed her daughter. Since her daughter did not accept his 2/7

love proposal. On 09.06.2025, the first petitioner trespassed into her house, abused by using filthy language and the other petitioners are also accompanied with the first petitioner and started to assault her and her family members. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defactocomplainant and the petitioners are close relatives, due to pervious enmity the Defacto-complainant lodged a false complaint against these petitioners. The petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide any conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the first petitioner proposed the daughter of the defacto-complainant, she refused the love proposal of the first petitioner. Due to which, the first petitioner and other petitioners were trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy language and attacked her. At the time of occurrence, nobody sustained any injury. There is no previous case pending against these petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3/7

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the FIR was registered on 09.06.2025, by this time most of the investigation might have been completed, there is no previous case against these petitioners, 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 anticipatory 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, Singampunari on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate 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 Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari 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; 4/7

(b) the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari;

(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; 5/7

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

sd/- 03/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /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 SINGAMPUNARI 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SINGAMPUNARI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

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

6/7

+1 CC to M/s.C.SUSI KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-7131[I] dated 04/07/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11170 of 2025 Date :03/07/2025 AS/SAR/18.07.2025/7P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

7/7