Anto Vanaraj vs State Of Tamilnadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 305, 49 of BNS, 2023, and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.263 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working as Collection In-charge at P.K.R Finance, Srivilliputhur. Due to previous enmity between the defacto complainant's employer and one Abubakkar regarding the repayment of borrowed money, on 24.05.2026 the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the finance office and caused damage to the furniture, glass doors, Air-conditioner and CCTV Cameras to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs and also committed the theft of Rs.3 lakhs & 2 gold rings, which were kept in the office locker. On hearing the occurrence, the defacto complainant went to the office. At that time, they came out of the premises and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the co-accused was already released on bail and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that due to previous enmity, the accused persons trespassed into the office of the defacto complainant and caused damage to the articles valued at about Rs.2 lakhs and also committed the theft of Rs.3 lakhs & 2 gold rings, which were kept in the office locker and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 1 previous case. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the co-accused was already released on bail.

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and there is a dispute between the parties and already the co-accused was released on bail and though the prosecution stated that the petitioner has 1 previous cases, in that case, he was released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Srivilliputhur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., in all working days until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.