Vengudusamy @ Venkidusamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.19799 of 2025 1.Vengudusamy @ Venkidusamy 2.Senthilkumar @ Senthil 3.Chinnasamy @ Chinnu

4. Jeyapandi

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.380 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sudhanthiran For Respondent : Mrs.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 380 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 191(2), 329(4), 296(b), 115(2),79, 324(4), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),2023 in Crime No.380 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The prosecution of the case is that the defacto complainant got married with One Irfan and they were blessed with two children namely Asim and a daughter named Sunaina. The defacto complainant is residing in the house which belongs to one Kesavan from Vedasandur. The said house was purchased by the said Kesavan from one Vengudusamy's brother namely Gopalakrishnan, who is nearer to the defacto complainant's house.

The said Vengudusamy and Kesavan has some dispute in respect of the property where the defacto complainant resides and thereby a criminal case has been registered in this regard at the Vedasandur police station. Due to this, Vengudusamy, Vengudusamy's sister Nagammal and son Senthil often would come to the defacto complainant's house and would threaten the defacto complainant by saying that this house belongs to their brother and they should vacate it. Hence the defacto complainant has informed them to speak with the house owner, but they didn't listen to the same. In this situation, on 23.10.

house was vacant in the below of where the defacto complainant resides and in that vacant house, the petitioners broke the lock of the house and trespassed inside. They sat down and drank alcohol and further came in front of the defacto complainant's house and informed to vacate the house. The matter was communicated to the said Kesavan and in turn he has reached the occurrence spot and thereby, a small scuffle has happened. 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 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 defacto complainant is a tenant in the disputed property. The 1st petitioner and another person are claiming rival title to the disputed property. The present allegation against the petitioners is that they tried to evict the tenant forcefully and also misbehaved by posing themselves in 3/6

obscene way especially, A3 and A4 / petitioners 3 and 4. It is an admitted fact that suit in O.S.No.210 of 2025 on the file of Sub Court, Vedasandur, is pending between the first petitioner and the other person. 6.Considering the nature of offence and considering the age of the first petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7.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, Vedasandur, Dindigul, 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., until further orders.

[c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either 4/6

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 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 not disturb or intimidate the defacto complainant until the disposal of the suit.

10.11.2025 TMG TO

1. Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur Dindigul.

2.Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station, Dindigul 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.19799 of 2025 Date : 10.11.2025 6/6