Ramakrishnan v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14/08/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI 1.Ramakrishnan 2.Selvameena @ Meena ..Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.445 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.445 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 329(4), 324(4), 115(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in Crime No.445 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.2025, when the defacto complainant was alone at his mother-in-law's complex, the petitioners along with other accused persons have come to the complex shops, abused the defacto complainant with filthy language, threatened him to withdraw the complaint preferred by his mother-in-law on 27.07.2025 regarding the rental dispute with the petitioners. Further, the petitioners and other accused persons have destroyed the materials available in the shop and allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence a complaint was given by the defacto complainant before the respondent police and a case has been registered.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The defacto complainant forcibly entered into the shop and illegally vacated the petitioners from the shop and taken away all the materials. He further submits that 2/6
the petitioners are ready and willing to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are two named accused and 20 unnamed accused persons in this case. The petitioners are tenants under the defacto complainant. Due to enmity with regard to collection of rent, the defacto complainant entered into the shop of the petitioners. Therefore, a quarrel arose between them. Both parties were sustained simple injury in this incident. A counter case in Crime No.444 of 2025 before the respondent police has also been registered against the defacto complainant. There is no bad antecedent against the petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that the injured has sustained only simple injuries and also the fact that a counter case has also been filed against the defacto complainant and also taking into account of the fact that by this time, material part of the investigation might have been completed, 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 bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of 3/6
receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, 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; (b) the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul;
(d) the petitioners shall appear and sign before the Singampunari police station, daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders;
(e) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(f) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; 4/6
(g) 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 themself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (h) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.
sd/- 14/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
pnn TO:- 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Singampunari Police Station, Sivagangai District.
5/6
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13556 of 2025 Date :14/08/2025 AS/16.09.2025/6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 6/6