Pradeepraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.07.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Pradeepraj, S/o.Manivannan

...Petitioner / Sole Accused

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station, Thanjavur District.

(Crime No.296 of 2025) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023. PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.296 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.06.2025 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959, in Crime No.296 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is the SubInspector of Police, lodged a complaint before the respondent police against the petitioner. He alleged that on 24.06.2025 at about 14:00 hours, based on specific information, the respondent police were conducting a raid near Krishnappan Enterprises, Inthu Thalaippu. At that time, the petitioner was found in possession of an aruval and was also disturbing the general public. Consequently, the respondent police arrested the petitioner and seized the aruval. Hence the case.

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 no injury was caused by the petitioner. He would further 2/6

submit that the petitioner is in custody from 24.06.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner was disturbing the general public by showing an aruval. He would further submit that there are five previous cases against the petitioner. He would further submit that no one sustained any injury at the hands of the petitioner. He would also submit that the alleged properties have been recovered from the petitioner and however, he opposes the grant of 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 period of incarceration and also the fact that the alleged properties have already been recovered, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, subject to the following conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 3/6

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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur, 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 furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur. If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur.

[c] the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily twice at 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. until further orders. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 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 4/6

in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.

sd/- 08/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / 08/07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

PAL TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SUB-JAIL, THANAJVUR.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

5/6

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

+1 CC to M/s.K.M.KARUNAKARAN, Advocate ( SR-7272[I] dated 08/07/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11501 of 2025 Date :08/07/2025 PR/08.07 .2025 6P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6