Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 M.Suman ... Petitioner /Accused Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station, Chennai – 600 123. ... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.38 of 2025) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in Crime No.38 of 2025 by the respondent Police. For petitioner : Mr.Naresh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Dhananjayan Page No.1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 238, 316(1), 318(4) and 111(3) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act, in Crime No.38 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was working as a Production Engineer in the defacto complainant's Company and that the petitioner resigned the job and had transferred the drawings and other data's of the Company to the competitors of the defacto complainant and thus caused huge loss to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was forced to rejoin the defacto complainant's Company; that he was beaten up at the police station; that he had lodged a complaint against the police and the officials of the defacto complainant and in order to wreak vengeance, this complaint has been registered on the same day and that he had also filed a writ petition alleging custodial torture by the police. The Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in any case, the allegations are borne out by records and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would reiterate the case of the prosecution. 5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory bail stating that the vital information of the defacto complainant's Company was transferred and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the nature of allegations, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and since the allegations are borne out by records this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation is not required Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions: 8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for 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] 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; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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 reported in [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 13.02.2025 ata Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 To 1.The Inspector of Police, T-16, Nazarathpet Police Station, Chennai – 600 123. 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 3. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Poonamallee. Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN, J. ata Crl.OP.No.3805 of 2025 13.02.2025 Page No.7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis