Kasthuri Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pappanadu

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.10435 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 24/06/2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.10435 of 2025

¶8

1.Kasthuri 2.Manickam 3.T.Raja 4.Praveenkumar ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pappanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.160 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (Criminal Side)

¶11

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

¶12

1/5

¶13

CRL OP(MD). No.10435 of 2025

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.160 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 49, 351(3) and 303(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.160 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the de-facto complainant are close relatives. Due to a pending civil dispute, on 10.06.2025, at about 10.00 a.m., the 1^st petitioner, along with a few others, went to the de-facto complainant's mother's house, abused the de-facto complainant and her mother in filthy language, attacked them using a stick, and also threatened them with dire consequences. As a result, a gold chain weighing 1¼ sovereigns, a cellphone, and a bangle weighing 4 sovereigns were snatched. Hence, the case.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are

¶20

2/5

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.10435 of 2025

¶22

innocent persons and are in no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the issue pertains to a civil dispute. He further submitted that the injured have been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of the fact that the issue pertains to a civil dispute, and that the injured have been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶25

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

3/5

¶27

CRL OP(MD). No.10435 of 2025

¶28

sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu and on further conditions that:

¶29

(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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶30