Pon Rajesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Pon Rajesh . ..Petitioner/ Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

(Crime No.330 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.S.Sivaram PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 303(2) (NP) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, in Crime No.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail,

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had trespassed into the Aashram of the defacto complainant and damaged the Aashram Properties and also assaulted the employee of the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated them. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is not present at the scene of the occurrence, and he was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any 2/5

stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner has involved in very serious offence and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons had attacked the defacto complainant and other, due to which, they sustained injuries. He further submitted that the petitioner is the kingpin of the said incidents. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has involved in very serious offence and the investigation is at initial stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3/5

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 11.11.2025 msrm To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

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

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

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19889 of 2025 11.11.2025 5/5