PDM Suresh & Ors. vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 304(2), 351(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Under Sections 147, 448, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC) in Crime No. 250 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the de-facto complainant’s husband was running an unregistered chit and finance business and he had collected a sum to the tune of Rs.10/- Crore and he did not repay the same to the victims/public. After his demise, when the petitioners asked her to settle their chit amount, the de-facto complainant’s son-in-law captured their conversation in his cell phone. On seeing him, the petitioners scolded him with filthy language and snatched his cell phone and the de-facto complainant’s daughter tried to prevent them and they kicked on her stomach and slapped on her chin. Also, the petitioners joined together snatched the de-facto complainant’s Thali Saradu and threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. The injured persons taken to the Government Hospital, Anaicut. Hence the case.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate for the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the de-facto’s complainant husband collected a sum to the tune of Rs.10 Crore from the victims/public and he failed to repay the same after maturity the chit amount. After his demise, the de-facto complainant’s wife has not come forward to repay the amount to the victims. In the impact, the petitioners and others assaulted the de-facto complainant and her relatives. In this regard, A7 had already arrested and remanded in Vellore Jail. He would further submit that no amount has been recovered from the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

I have gone through the FIR and other relevant records, It is revealed that the de-facto complainant’s husband was running a chit and finance Company and had collected a sum to the tune of Rs.10 Crores from the victims under the guise of an unregistered chit and finance business. Suddenly, the de-facto complainant’s husband died. After his demise, when the petitioners requested the de-facto complainant to settle their chit amount, the de-facto complainant’s son-in-law captured their conversation in his cell phone. On seeing him, the petitioners scolded with filthy language, snatched his cell phone and when the de-facto complainant’s daughter tried to prevent him, the petitioners kicked on her stomach and slapped on her chin. Furthermore, the petitioners joined together snatched the de-facto complainant’s Thali Saradu and threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences.

Taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the petitioners, and the manner in which the occurrence took place, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.