R.Sasikumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 28.08.2025 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI 1.R.Sasikumar 2.Ramya ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 and 2 Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, C4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station (Crime), Madurai District.

(Cr.No.354 of 2024) 2.Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Madurai District.

(R2 suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 28.08.2025) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.T.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate(Crl.side) For Intervener : Mr.A.S.Rajeswari 1/8

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.354/2024 on the file of the Respondent Police.

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 120(B), 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.354 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners engaged in purchasing medicines from the defacto complainant from the year 2022. In the month of April, 2024, the petitioners said to have purchased medicines from the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.15,33,599/- and failed to pay the bill amount. Hence the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant is a whole sale dealer supplying medicine and the petitioners have purchased medicine from the defacto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners further 2/8

submits that there was a business transaction between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and the petitioners have purchased drugs from the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.15,33,599/-. Alleging that the petitioners have not settled the bill amount, a complaint was lodged and a kangaroo Court was conducted in the respondent police station. They have forced the petitioners to pay the sum of Rs.15,33,599/-. The petitioners have also paid a sum of Rs.8,83,400/- in the police station. The petitioners have also enclosed the acknowledgment for the payment of Rs.8,83,400/-.

4. He further submitted that the defacto complainant with the cheque, which has been given during the business transaction as a security, lodged a complaint before the learned Fast Track / Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.C.No.291 of 2024 for a cheque amount of Rs.15,33,599/-. In the meantime, another complaint was also lodged before the Tallakulam Police station and the same was registered in Crime No.354 of 2024.

5. Learned Government Advocate has also confirmed the allegations made by the petitioners. He further confirmed that there was a compromise talk in the police 3/8

station.

6. Learned counsel for the intervener / defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners have assured to pay the amount on or before March, 2025, however, they failed to pay the amount. Therefore, the complaint has been lodged.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side. This is a glaring example as to how the police parties are doing kattapanchayat in a business transaction. The transaction between the petitioners and the defacto complainant is purely a business transaction for which a criminal complaint has been entertained by the respondent police and a Kangaroo Court has also been conducted in the respondent police station and an amount has also been recovered in the police station under the threat of arrest.

8. The petitioners have also referred to a summon issued under Section 91 and 160 Cr.P.C., on 24.06.2024, calling upon them for enquiry before the C4, Thilagarthidal Police Station on 01.07.2024. This summon has been issued without even registering a case. The case has been registered only on 08.08.2024. The 4/8

summon issued by the respondent police substantiates the allegation of the petitioners that there was a kangaroo Court conducted in the Thilagarthidal police station. The petitioners have also placed certified materials that there was a transaction. After the summon issued by the respondent police, a sum of Rs.3,83,400/- was paid by the petitioners to the defacto complainant on 19.08.2024, Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.11.2024 and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 14.12.2024. The petitioners have thus prima facie substantiated that there was a kangaroo Court conducted by the C4, Thilagarthidal police for a business transaction. As such, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

9. Considering the materials placed on record, this Court suo motu impleads the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Madurai City, as a party to the proceedings and directs the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Madurai City, i) to ascertain whether this complaint constitutes a criminal case ; ii) whether any kangaroo Court has been conducted by the Inspector of Police, Thilagarthidal police Station, by entertaining a petition enquiry in a business transaction. If the Deputy Commissioner of Police is satisfied that the police has abused the powers by conducting kangaroo Court, take appropriate action against the police officials. 5/8

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

11. 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 Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Madurai on condition that the petitioners 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 Court No. II, Madurai 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 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. He has to co-operate for the investigation.

iii. 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 6/8

trial as well.

iv. On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioners, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

sd/- 28/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /09/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

pnn TO 1 The Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Madurai.

2 Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Madurai District.

3 The Inspector of Police, C4, Thilagar Thidal Police Station (Crime), Madurai District.

4 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.T.BALAKRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-9269[I] dated 28/08/2025 ) 7/8

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14232 of 2025 Date :28/08/2025 NM/10.09.2025/ 8P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8