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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR C.Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai East Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent (Crime No.621 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.621 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 194 of BNSS, 2023 and subsequently altered to 13(1) BNS @ 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 103(1) of BNS in Crime No.621 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as 1/6

A6 in this case. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, the deceased visited the petitioner's village, scolded some of the villagers, and the same was questioned by the petitioner and others. Even thereafter, the deceased abused the petitioner and others due to which, the petitioner joined hands with other accused have attacked the deceased with wooden logs, stones and hands. Originally, the case was registered as suspicious death, subsequently, the investigation revealed that the petitioner joined hands with other accused i.e, totally 9 accused jointly attacked the deceased. Hence, a case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the alteration report, it is alleged that three other persons attacked the deceased in this case and however the petitioner's name was not found in the alteration report. Subsequently, based on statement recorded from the other accused, it is stated that the petitioner has also attacked the deceased with hands and that it is a false acquisition and in fact the petitioner helped the deceased to go away from there and ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 2/6

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that totally nine accused in this case and that the petitioner is ranked as A6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner also attacked the deceased with hands and caused injuries. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and more particularly, the overt act against the petitioner is that, the petitioner attacked the deceased with hands, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary since the overt act is very limited and major part of the overt act is only against the other accused, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 3/6

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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, 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 anticipatory 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

28.01.2026 ssi To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, 4/6

Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai East Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR,J.

ssi 5/6

Crl.OP.No.1559 of 2026 28.01.2026 6/6