Dhamodaran v. State Rep by Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.439 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The F.I.R indicates that the petitioner herein had unleashed his dog when three college girls came to the house of the de-facto complainant to enquire about taking it on rent. Threatened by the aggressiveness of the dog, the three girls attempted to flee from the place, fell into the sewer, and sustained injuries. when this was questioned by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences by showing an axe and a knife. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accidental fall of the three college girls has been exaggerated in the complaint, and the allegations are false. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner had intentionally unleashed the dog to terrorize the visitors of the de-facto complainant.

¶5Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the submissions, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [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; [b] the petitioner shall stay at Erode and report before the Pallipalayam Police Station twice daily at

10.30a.m., and 5.30p.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, he shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; [c] 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]; [d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

02.09.2025 nvi To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-2, Salem

¶2The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Inspector of Police Palliipalayam Police Station, Erode.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,

J. nvi

02.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Dhamothran ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs. The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.439 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.439 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.Deepak Kumar.C For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) **********