CRL OP NO. 1532 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-01-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 1532 of 2025 1. Dhinesh M/A 27 years (A3) S/o. Krishnamoorthi 2. Devendhiran M/A 60 years (A4) S/o. Govindasamy 3. Porattan @ Krishnan M/A 68 years (A5) S/o. Venkataraman 4. Samundi M/A 66 years (A6) S/o. Tottappan 5. Ashokkumar M/A 32 years (A7) S/o. Samundi 6. Chinna Govindhan @ Govindhan M/A57 years (A8) S/o. Pollappan 7.Veerabathiran M/A 54 years (A9) S/o.Podiyappan 8. Subiramani M/A 55 years (A10) S/o. Tottappan 9. Balappan @Balan M/A 73 years (A11) S/o.Muthappan Goundar 10.Venkatesan M/A 47 years (A12) S/o. Vegatasamy 11.Jayaganthan M/A 27 years (A13) S/o.Venkatesan 12. Ramachandhiran M/A 30 years (A14) S/o.Venkatesan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis All are resinding at Mallinayanapalli, Elumichangiri,Kammaampalli (Po), Kriahnagiri District petitioners(s) Vs The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, Maharajakadi Police Station, Krishnagiri District ,(Crime No.11 of 2025) Respondent(s) For petitioners(s): Mr. P.M. Jayachandran For Respondent(s): Mr. S.Santhosh,Government Advocate (Criminal Side). ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 56 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Santiya (BNS) 2023, in Crime No. 11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the complainant, and there was a dispute between the de-facto complainant and the accused with regard to the administration of the Temple. Further, the allegations is that the accused harrassed the de-facto complainant by making false allegations on him. This resulted in the de-facto complainant sufferring mental agony and leading him to commit suicide by pouring diesel and setting himself on fire. Hence, this case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and a false complainant has been given against them. He also submits that, as per the dying declaration statement and the complaint given by the de- facto complainant, the case of abetment is not made out. Further, he submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that the deceased and the accused belongs to the same village. Both the parties had a dispute regarding the maintainance of the Temple since 2018. The deceased/de-facto complainant, along with others from the Village, asked for ledger and other details of the Temple, which led to a dispute. Thereafter, the petitioners, along with the other accused, lodged a complaint against the deceased /de-facto complainant alleging that he was involved in gambling, and all the accused/petitioners herein signed it. Due to this frustration, the deceased/de-facto complainant committed suicide by pouring diesel, resulting in 65% of burn injuries. He was declared dead by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis doctor. The deceased gave a dying declaration before two learned Judicial Magistrates, which was recorded. In it, he specifically mentioned the names, viz., Samundi (A6), Ashokkumar (A7), Subramani @ Kutty (who was already arrested), Jayaganthan (A13) and Ramachandiran (A14). The petitioners herein are the accused/A3 to A12. There are no previous cases pending against these petitioners. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener/ de-facto complainant has vehemently opposed granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stating that the accused continuously harassed the de-facto complainant and his family members in high-handed manner, resulting the de-facto complainant/victim committing suicide by self-immolation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and also perused the materials available on record, including the dying declaration of the victim/de-facto complainant. 7. Considering the nature of the offence charged against the petitioners and also taking note of the fact that the deceased/de-facto complainant specifically mentioned the names of the petitioners Nos.4, 5, 11 and 12/ accused/ Samundi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (A6), Ashokkumar (A7), Jayaganthan (A13) and Ramachandiran (A14), this Court dismisses the anticipatory bail for these petitioners. However, for the remaining petitioners Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10/accused/A3, A4, A5, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the remaining petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri District. on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate 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 Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] 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; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis [c] the petitioners shall stay at Madurai and report before the Othakadai Police Station daily at 10:30 P.M., until further orders; [d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during the investigation or during the trial; [e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during the investigation or during the trial; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 were 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]; [g] If the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS. 28-01-2025 (1/2) klt To 1.The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, Maharajakadi Police Station, Krishnagiri District ,(Crime No. 11 of 2025) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. klt CRL OP NO. 1532 of 2025 28.01.2025 (1/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis