Arul Stephen Vignesh v. The State Of Taminadu Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.13134 of 2025 1.Arul Stephen Vignesh 2.Josin Michlin Amala @ Amala ... Petitioners Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Alagapapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.77 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.77 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

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 294(b), 506(I) and 420 of IPC, 1860, in Crime No.77 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the promise of the Government Job, since her wielded at influence with the political figures. Believing the same, the defacto complainant had transferred Rs. 3,00,000/- to the acoount number of the 1st petitioner in three different occasions. Further the 1st petitioner had received an unfilled cheque to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. All the transactions took place in the year of 2021. However, the 1st petitioner neither gave the Government job nor returned the amount borrowed from the defacto complainant. When the same was questioned, the 1st petitioner criminally intimidated the defacto complainant by using slur comments. Hence, this case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not 2/6

committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.

5.It is seen that the petitioners have preferred a complaint as early as 30.12.2023 and the defacto complainant has also preferred a complaint before the respondent. However, both the complaints were treated as civil dispute. The petitioners have approached the Judicial Magistrate under 156 and there was a direction. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered. Therefore, a comprehensive investigation is necessary.

6.Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to submit a complaint before the respondent. Both the defacto complainant and the petitioners shall appear before the respondent daily at 10.30 am for a period of 15 days and corporate for the investigation.

7.Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this 3/6

Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the 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 Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 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 Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 15 days and thereafter, as and when required. [c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e]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 4/6

the petitioner is 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].

[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

[g]The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. 13.11.2025 TMG TO

1. Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Alagapapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J TMG

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13134 of 2025 Date : 13.11.2025 6/6