Jaya @ Jayaprakash v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.2089 of 2026 1.Jaya @ Jayaprakash 2.Rajini @ Rajinikanth ... Petitioners

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

(Crime No.327 of 2025) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.327 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.S.Thirugnanam For Respondent :

M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) and 49 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.327 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 1/5

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, due to land dispute, on the date of the alleged occurrence, a wordy quarrel arose for which the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with knife, thereby causing severe injuries to him. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally 7 accused in this case and the petitioners herein are arrayed as A4 and A5. She further submitted that A3 is arrested and still in judicial custody. She further submitted that it is a case and case in counter and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record. 2/5

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital and that the petitioners have no previous cases pending against them, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall stay at Salem and report before the Salem Town Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence 3/5

or witness either during investigation or trial; (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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 30.01.2026 drl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl CRL.O.P.No.2089 of 2026 30.01.2026 5/5