Sadam Hussen v. The State Rep.By., The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Sadam Hussen Son of Abdul Rahman, No. 8/3, Main Road Pattur, Mangadu, Chennai - 600 122 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by., The Inspector of Police T-14, Mangadu Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No. 46 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest, pending investigation in the Crime No. 46 of 2026, on the file of the Respondent police herein and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mohamed Riyas M

H.Thameen Ansari S.Abdul Kapoor R.Yuvaraj G.Sathish Kumar For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 296(b), 126(2) of BNS and Section 4 of Women harassment Act in Crime No.46 of 2026 seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that he objected the defacto complainant to park his two wheeler in the road. Due to which there was a wordy quarrel between them and the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with wooden logs and caused severe injuries to him. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant has encroached the road and parked his two wheeler and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant also attacked the petitioner and caused injuries to him. He further submitted that he is ready to

abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner brutally attacked the defacto complainant and causes severed injuries and he also attacked the daughter of the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that the petitioner has no previous case pending against him. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of allegations and the motive behind the occurred and the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has no previous case pending against him, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial

Magistrate Court at Sriperumbudur, on condition that the 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 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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.

04-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SMN To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court at Sriperumbudur

2. The Inspector of Police T-14, Mangadu Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

SMN 04-02-2026