Kalaivanan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28.03.2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.6031 of 2025

¶22

to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶23

The petitioner/A3 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.131 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are family members and having property dispute between them. On 26.02.2025, at about 01.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant and two others entered into the defacto complainant's father's house, the dog belongs to the petitioner was barking and the said dog was tied by one priya, who is the sister's daughter of the defacto complainant. Due to which, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them and the petitioner and other accused namely A2 and A3 said to have abused them in filthy language and also assaulted the defacto complainant with nose sepctacles, thereby, causing simple injuries to the defacto complainant and further, they threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶25

Mr.K.Arunraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.6031 of 2025

¶29

the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He, however, submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are family members. Accordingly, he prays to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that due to property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the petitioner herein attacked the defacto complainant. He further submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. He further submits that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 26.02.2025 and discharged on 29.02.2025. However, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

¶31

Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.

¶32

It is seen that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. It is further seen that the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, and also considering the fact that

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

CRL OP(MD). No.6031 of 2025

¶37

the petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society and therefore, there is less possibility of absconding, and also considering the fact that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are family members, and taking note of the fact that there are no previous cases against the petitioner and also with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest or in the event of his surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, within a period of 15 days from date on which the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli,;

¶39

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶40

4/6

¶41

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

¶42

CRL OP(MD). No.6031 of 2025

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-police weekly twice (ie., on Sunday and Monday) at 08.00 a.m., until further orders;

¶44

(iv) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶45

(v) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly cause threat to the defacto complainant and the witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence;

¶46

(vi) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶47

(vii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

¶48

(viii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli,;

¶49

(ix) The petitioner shall not enter into the defacto complainant's house or workplace; and

¶50

(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, or Trial Court, as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

¶53

CRL OP(MD). No.6031 of 2025

¶54

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].

¶55