Jahubar Ali v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 28.08.2025 PRESENT THE HONONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
1. Jahubar Ali
2. Shahul Hameed Abuthahir ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamilnadu Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.170 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(Crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.170 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/5
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 324(5), 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.170 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the current Secretary of the Muslim Dharma Paripala Sabha, vazhur, The Kappadiyar Dhargah near the Vazhur beach is more than a hundred years old. On 13.07.2025 at around 10.45 a.m., the above said Dhargah was vandalized and damaged by the accused person. In this regard, the defato complainant has filed a complaint before the Devipattinam Police Station.
Upon receipt of the petition and questioning both parties, the accused persons together wrote a letter stating that they would restore the damaged Dargah to its original condition and that they would settle the issue of the location through the court and left. However, as per the written complaint, the Dargah was not repaired and in the meantime, the accused filed a case against them before the Ramanathapuram District Munsif Court in O.S.No.123 of 2025. Further, the accused person and others together demolished the remaining Dargah and reduced it to a state of disrepair. The value of the damaged property is approximately Rs.2,00,000/-. On 18.08.2025 at around 11.30 a.
his members, who were standing at the above mentioned place, asked the accused person about it, the accused persons abused the defacto complainant with foul language and threatened to kill him. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits the petitioners have filed a civil suit against the defacto complainant in O.S.No.123 of 2025 and they are prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of Crime No.170 of 2025 to show their bonafide. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and the investigation is almost completed. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Ramanathapuram, on condition that the petitioners 3/5
shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Ramanathapuram, and on further conditions that: i. The petitioners and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address; ii. The Petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000.- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.170 of 2025 without prejudice to their defence before the trial Court.
iii. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of fifteen days. He has to co-operate for the investigation.
iv. The petitioners shall not misuse the liberty granted to them by indulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall be available for the trial as well.
v. On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioners, the 4/5
respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
sd/- 28/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
msrm TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Ramanathapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14205 of 2025 Date :28/08/2025 NBF/10/09/2025/ 5P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5