Allowed

Chandran v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Madras HC27 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/23129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of abusing the complainant and threatening him under BNS and TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, subject to specific conditions including reporting to police and not absconding or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions including execution of bonds, reporting to police, and restrictions on absconding and tampering with evidence.

Chandran Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.23129 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 27/12/2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.23129 of 2024

¶8

Chandran @ Chathran

¶9

Banumathi, ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 3

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station Ramanathapuram (Crime No. 273 of 2024). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s. Senthil Murugan.C., Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi,

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 273 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police... https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/5

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.23129 of 2024

¶20

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶21

The petitioners/Accused 1 & 3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 115(2) and 118 (1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that due to the previous enmity, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that these petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. However, he would concede that no previous criminal case is pending against the second petitioner and the injured has been discharged from the

¶25

hospital and there are two previous cases pending against the first petitioner. Hence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/5

¶27

CRL OP(MD). No.23129 of 2024

¶28

he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, the fact that no previous case is pending against the second petitioner, that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that though there are previous cases pending against the first petitioner, all the cases are not similar kind of other and he was released on bail in those cases, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute bonds 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 Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, and on further conditions that:

¶32

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

¶33

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶34

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

¶35

3/5

¶36

CRL OP(MD). No.23129 of 2024

¶37

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶38

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶39

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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].

¶40

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

sd/-

27/12/2024

/ TRUE COPY /

/12/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I / II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶45

¶46

¶47

The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi,

¶48

Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District.

¶49

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

¶50

4/5

¶51

CRL OP(MD). No.23129 of 2024

¶52

The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station Ramanathapuram

¶53

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

¶54

ORDER IN

¶55

CRL OP(MD) No.23129 of 2024 Date :27/12/2024

¶56

RK/SKN(31/12/2024) 5P / 5C

¶57

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶58

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

¶59

5/5

Chandran v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.v.Ahamed Kutty (died), 2. C.V. Alavi Kutty Vs S.Ramalingam (died), 2. S.Rajendran

Aandaperumal Vs Lakshmiammal

C.v.Ahamed Kutty(Died) Vs S.Ramalingam(Died)

Rajamanickam Vs The State of Police

Murugesan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Nowfiya Thasneem Vs The State of Tamil Nadu