Muniyasamy @ John Brito @ John Peter v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Muniyasamy @ John Brito @ John Peter, S/o.Murugan, ..Petitioner/ 1st Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.99 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Devasena 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.99 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/6

ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351

(3) of BNS @ 296(b), 118(1), 351(3), 109 (1) of BNS in Crime No.99 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant is the brick canal contractor and the petitioner is working under the Defacto-complainant and there is some dispute between them. On 26.05.2025, the petitioner abused the defactocomplainant and his brother in filthy language and attempted to murder with sickle. The brother of the defacto-complainant sustained grievous injuries on his hand due to the assault of this petitioner. This petitioner threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, there are totally two accused persons, this petitioner was arrayed as first accused. 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 any conditions that 2/6

may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 12.06.2025 nearly 27 days. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the defacto-complainant and his brother and the accused persons are working in the brick canal. The Accused No.1 quarrelled with some other person, that was resisted by the defacto-complainant. On keeping that in mind, on 26.05.2025, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were assaulted the defacto-complainant and threatened with dire consequences. On 26.05.2025, the injured person was admitted in hospital and on 02.06.2025, he was discharged from the hospital. This petitioner is having two previous cases. In this case, the accused No.2 was absconded. Hence, he 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 injured person was discharged from hospital on 02.06.2025, in this case, FIR was registered on 27.05.2025, by this time, most of the investigation might have been completed, the petitioner/1st accused remanded into judicial custody on 12.06.2025, taking into consideration of the period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the 3/6

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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District 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 contact number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District. If the petitioner changes his residential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District; [c] the petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30a.m., until further orders.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

4/6

[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 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 BNS.

sd/- 11/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

GVN TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KADALADI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 DO THOUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM.

5/6

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAYALKUDI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to S.DEVASENA Advocate SR.No.7432 (I) DT.11/07/2025

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11768 of 2025 Date :11/07/2025 NM/11.07.2025/ 6P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6