Allowed

Sundari v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Feb 2020CRL OP/3360/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Madras High Court considered a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNS Act. The court held that since other co-accused are on bail and the petitioner suffers from advanced age, anticipatory bail is granted subject to conditions including executing a bond and reporting daily.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the second petitioner subject to bond execution, daily reporting, and other standard conditions to appear before Judicial Magistrate within fifteen days.

Sundari Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP NO. 3360 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-02-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO. 3360 of 2025

¶5

1.Narayanan 2.Sooran @ Soorappan

3.Natarajan

4.Elumalai

Petitioners

The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, Kallakurichi District. (Crime No. 82 of 2025)

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer:

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner / Accused on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 82 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For petitioners:

¶15

Mr.sarath chandran

¶16

For Respondent(s):

¶17

Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent

¶20

police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1)

¶21

and 351(3) and 74 of BNS Act, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

1/4

¶24

CRL OP NO. 3360 of 2025

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that there is a civil dispute prevailing between the petitioners family and the de facto complainant's family. Due to this enmity, a wordy quarrel arose between the parties, as a result of which, the de facto complainant was attacked and injured. Hence, the case.

¶26

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court; that the co-accused (A1, A3 and A4) were arrested and released on bail; and that the custodial interrogation is not required in this case for the second petitioner. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that there are no previous cases as against the petitioners and the co-accused were arrested and released on bail.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/4

¶30

CRL OP NO. 3360 of 2025

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

Considering the submission made by either side; that the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were already arrested and released on bail, this petition filed by them has becomes infructuous. The second petiitoner is aged about 65 years; onsidering the age of the petitioner; nature of allegation and the coaccused were arrested and released on bail and custodial interrogation of the second petitioner is not required for the investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet on condition that the petitioner/A2 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/4

¶36

CRL OP NO. 3360 of 2025

¶37

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶38

Vca

¶39

Magistrate, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶40

[b] the petitioner/A2 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶41

[c] the petitioner/A2 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶42

[d] the petitioner/A2 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/A2 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner/A2 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];

¶43

[ f ] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

12-02-2025

vca

The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, Kallakurichi District.(Crime No. 82 of 2025)

¶48

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet

¶49

3.The Public Prosecutor,

¶50

Madras High Court, Chennai

¶51

CRL OP NO. 3360 of 2025

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

4/4

Sundari v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundari v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Rajaji Vs S.Hemalatha

Mr.Anthony Jaker Vs G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar

Sukumar Ramalingam Vs M/S.Canbank Factors Ltd.

N. Ashokkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Saratha Vs Shoba

Manoharan Vs the Inspector of Police