Allowed

Silambarasan v. State rep by

Madras HC9 Dec 2025CRL OP/33633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner arrested for damaging an auto mirror and using filthy language. The court considered the petitioner's lack of previous antecedents and incarceration period, imposing conditions including daily police reporting and deposit for compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail executing bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties, daily reporting for two weeks, and deposit of Rs.3,000.

Silambarasan Vs State rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 33633 of 2025

¶6

Silambarasan ... Petitioner Vs. The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Omerabad Police Station Thirupathur District Crime No. 394 of 2025. ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 394 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Thomas Saransingh For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.11.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of BNS [294(b), 506(ii) of IPC] r;/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No. 394 of 2025, registered on the file respondent police, seeks bail.

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶14

intentionally damaged the auto mirror worth about Rs.3,000/- by using knife owned by the de-facto complainant’s husband due to previous enmity and scolded the de-facto complainant and her husband using filthy language. Hence the respondent police arrested the petitioner on 10.11.2025. Hence the case.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the de-facto complainant’s auto mirror was not intentionally damaged, but was damaged while the petitioner was playing cricket. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 10.11.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner wantonly damaged the auto mirror worth about Rs.3,000/- by using knife owned by the de-facto complainant’s husband due to previous

¶17

2/6

¶18

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

¶19

enmity and scolded the de-facto complainant and her husband in filthy language. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

5 . Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

6. Considering the fact that the period of incarceration undergone by

¶22

the petitioner; that the petitioner has no previous antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

¶24

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties , for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambur, and on further conditions that:

¶25

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

[b] that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police station everyday at 10:30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶29

[c] that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- [Rupees Three Thousand Only] to the credit of Crime No. 394 of 2025 and the de-facto complainant is permitted to withdraw the said amount by filing necessary application in the manner known to law.

¶30

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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)13 SCC 283 ];

¶31

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

¶32

09.12.2025

¶33

MSM Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

Note :

¶37

Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶38

All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

¶39

5/6

¶40

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

¶41

¶42