Karthikeyan v. The 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. Karthikeyan

2. Mugundhan Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by its, Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

(Crime No. 416/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent in respect of Crime No.416 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Ragavendran Advocate For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners herein, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 324(2) & 351(3) of BNSS, in Crime No.416 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, due to previous enmity, the petitioners joining hands with the other accused, attacked the de facto complainant and his father with a knife and an iron rod, thereby caused severe injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to a family dispute, the case has been registered against the petitioners and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Further, he submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the first petitioner viz., Karthikeyan is having 9 previous cases and the 2nd petitioner viz.,Mugundhan is also having 2 previous cases. Further, she submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, she vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the nature of the allegation levelled against the 1st

petitioner and also the fact that the 1st petitioner is having 9 previous cases, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner and the petition in respect of the 1st petitioner stands dismissed. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, taking into consideration the allegation made against him and also the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner, however with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the 2nd 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur on condition that the 2nd petitioner 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] if the 2nd petitioner fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] 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;

[c] the 2nd petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the 2nd petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

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

12-01-2026 Jd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

(Crime No. 416/2025)

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

jd 12-01-2026