Padmanaban v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Padmanaban S/o.Gopal, No.3/18, Renugambal Kovil Street, Malaipattu, Kancheepuram District -601301 and 3 Others

2. Raman S/o.Padmanaban,, No.3/18, Renugambal Kovil Street, Malaipattu, Kancheepuram District -601301

3. Rubesh @ Santhosh S/o. Inbaraj VTC Mudichur No.3/6, Vaigarai Amman Kovil Street Mannivakkam Post, Kancheepuram District -600048

4. Ruban @ Rahul S/o. Inbaraj Mannivakkam Post, No.3/6, Vaigarai Amman Kovil Street VTC Mudichur Kancheepuram District-600048 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police T-11 Somangalam Police Station Kancheepuram District Crime No. 13 of Respondent(s)

PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime no. 13/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-11 Somangalam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

For Petitioner(s):

Siddharth S For Respondent(s):

M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener:

Mr.C.Balasubramaniam

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(ii), 118(1), 109 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No. 13 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they joined hands with other accused due to previous enmity and political rivalry, on the instigation of the 1st petitioner/A3, his family members and others waylaid and attacked the de facto complainant with a knife, causing severe head injuries. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main accused who attacked the de facto complainant have already been arrested and are in custody. As far as these petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that they accompanied the other accused but did not attack the de facto complainant and

they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the 1st petitioner instigated the other accused to commit the offence of attempt to murder. The victim suffered grievous injuries, and though he has been discharged, he is still undergoing treatment as an outpatient. The petitioners also have previous cases; hence, if released on bail, they will indulge in similar offences. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the 1st petitioner/A3 has one similar case, and the 2nd petitioner has one case under illegal sand theft cases and the other two petitioners have no previous cases. She further submitted that tension prevails in the area, and if the petitioners are granted bail, there is a likelihood that they will indulge in similar offences; the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the petitioners' overt acts, I am inclined to grant 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, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall stay at Salem and report before the Judicial Magistrate-I, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions 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 v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

27-01-2026 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. 2.The State represented by The Inspector of Police T-11 Somangalam Police Station Kancheepuram District Crime No. 13 of 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 1319 of 27-01-2026