Jayaraj v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Jayaraj 2.Kalidoss 3.Kanal Perumal 4.Manikandan 5.Saravanan 6.Soundara Pandian 7.Vijayakumar 8.Prasanth Raman 9.Muthu Kumaran Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.435 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER:This Criminal Origional Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection Wwith Crime No. 435 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V Manimaran For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 351 (2) of BNS (under Section 147, 294(b) & 506(I) of IPC) in connection with the Cr.No.435 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioners is that on 30.12.2025 at about 12.00 am., due to political rivalry, the petitioners committed riot in front of the police station, abused the defacto complainant and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, and the have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police, they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and on instructions, submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the submission made by both sides, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

12-01-2026 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

jai 12-01-2026