Senthil @ Senthil Kumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02/09/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

1. Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, S/o.Valanadu

2. Selvam @ Selva Kumar, S/o.Valanadu

3. Veerammal @ Pappu, W/o.Valanadu ..Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.375 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Nihar Ali Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abdul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervener : Mr.P.Saravanan 1/6

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.375 of 2025 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 offences punishable under Section 296(b), 115(2), 118(2) & 351(3) of BNS r/w.Section 4 of TamilNadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.375 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a land dispute pending between the petitioners and the defacto-complainant. On 13.08.2025, while the defactocomplainant was working at her land along with her son at the time the petitioners along with Accused No.1 namely Valanadu were said to be came there and thereby they abused the defacto-complainant with filthy language and thereafter at the instigation of A1, the petitioners were said to be assaulted the defacto-complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to previous enmity, the defacto-complainant lodged a false complaint against these petitioners. The petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide any 2/6

conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that these petitioners having previous enmity with the defacto-complainant with regard to land dispute. On 13.08.2025, these petitioners joined together and attacked the defactocomplainant, due to which she sustained severe head injury and she was admitted in hospital and on 17.08.2025, she was discharged from hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that due to previous land dispute was pending between the defacto-complainant and the petitioners. On 13.08.2025, these petitioners were abused the defacto-complainant with filthy language and assaulted her. The Defacto-complainant sustained head injury and admitted in hospital and on 17.08.2025, the defacto-complainant was discharged from hospital. There are no previous cases against these petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that injured person was discharged from hospital, there are no previous cases against these petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their 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, Melur on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur 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 contact number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur;

(c) the petitioners shall Stay at Thanjavur and they shall appear and sign before the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Town South Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during 4/6

investigation or trial;

(e) the 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and; (g) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

sd/- 02/09/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

gvn TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Melur,

2. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thanjauvr Town South Police Station, Thanjavur District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

+1 CC to M/s.S.NIHAR ALI, Advocate ( SR-9577[I] dated 03/09/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14458 of 2025 Date :02/09/2025 NBF/09/09/2025/ 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6