Sarath @ Sarath Kumar v. State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Sarath @ Sarath kumar

2. Saravanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by, The Inspector of Police, Ponnur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Cr.No.12 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.12 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ponnur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.Silambu Selvan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.12 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police,

seek anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that, the petitioners and other accused person picked up a wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant, due to which, they abused and assaulted the defacto complainant using stones; that they further threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, this case.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that on account of previous dispute, a wordy quarrel arose and both parties exchanged blows; that a case in counter has been registered by the respondent based on the complaint given by the petitioners against the defacto complainant and other accused; and that the petitioners are ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation, and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant were belongs to same village

and on account of previous enmity, both parties exchanged blows; that the petitioners have no bad antecedents; that there is a case in counter; and that the investigation is pending, hence opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the petitioners, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that there is a counter case, the petitioners have no bad antecedents, the injured person was discharged from the hospital and since custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail

shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and 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 report before the respondent police everyday at 10:30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence 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].

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

05-02-2026 GBI

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Ponnur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Cr.No.12 of 2026.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

GBI 05-02-2026