← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11843/2025partly allowed

Pandiyan v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

2025-07-18Honourable Mr Justice P.Vadamalai8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD). No.9287 of 2025 1.Pandiyan, S/o.Thirumaran 2.Vijayananth, S/o.Muthuvijayan 3.Karthick, S/o.Rajamanickam 4.Anbalagan, S/o.Vellaiyamoorthi 5.Masilamani, S/o.Krishnan 6.Anandan, S/o.Palani 7.Velayutham, S/o.Velu ... Petitioners/A1, A3 to A7 & A9 Vs 1/8

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by, the Inspector of Police, Keeramangalam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.96 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.B.Mohan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Maheswaran R, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.96 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1, A3 to A7 & A9, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences initially punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 324(4), 351(3) and 49 of BNS, 2023 and subsequently altered to Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 324(4), 351(3), 49 and 109 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.96 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2/8

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant's wife is a doctor practicing at Keeramangalam and is learning to drive a car. To monitor her driving, the de-facto complainant used to follow her in a separate vehicle. On 03.07.2025, at around 08.15 p.m., while he was following his wife's car on Keeramangalam Sannathi Road, his vehicle was intercepted by the accused persons, who were armed with sickles. They began to damage the car windows, and two of them attempted to attack him with sickles. The accused also used obscene language, criminally intimidated the de-facto complainant, and warned him not to oppose one Pandian, who is the relative of the de-facto complainant. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not involved in any offences as stated by the prosecution. Due to political motive, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the 1st petitioner was at abroad at the time of alleged occurrence. He, however, submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

3/8

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the accused persons brutally attacked the de-facto complainant with sickles, causing grievous cut injuries on his right upper arm and wrist. He submitted that it was only at the instigation of the 1st accused that the other accused committed the present offence. He further stated that the 1st accused has several previous criminal antecedents and significant influence in the locality. If the accused are released on anticipatory bail, they are likely to tamper with the witnesses. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that the petitioners have been arrayed as A1, A3 to A7 & A9. A2 and A8 were arrested and subsequently released on bail. There are twelve previous cases registered against the 1st petitioner/A1. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, the specific overt act against the 1st petitioner, and also taking note of the fact that there are twelve previous cases registered against the 1st petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner at 4/8

this stage. However, considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and that two of the co-accused were arrested and subsequently released on bail, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2nd to 7th petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the 2nd to 7th petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi on condition that the 2nd to 7th petitioners shall execute a 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: (a) the 2nd to 7th 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; (b) the 2nd to 7th petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi.

event of any change in their residential address, the 2nd to 7th petitioners shall report the same to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi; (c) the 2nd to 7th petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

(d) the 2nd to 7th petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e) the 2nd to 7th 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 2nd to 7th petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 2nd to 7th petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] and;

(g) if the accused/the 2nd to 7th petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the 1st 6/8

petitioner and is allowed as against the 2nd to 7th petitioners. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 18/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

MKN TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALANGUDI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to B.MOHAN KUMAR (509/2013) Advocate SR.No.7811 (I) DT.18/07/2025 7/8

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11843 of 2025 Date :18/07/2025 NM/25.07.2025/ 8P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8