Bathina Anil Kumar v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :10.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.3092 of 2026

1. Bathina Anil Kumar

2. S. Gowri Shankar ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Minjur Police Station, Thiruvallur District - 601 203.

... Respondent (Cr.No.62 of 2026) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Crime No.62 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gowthan, Sr Advocate for Mr.G. Mohammed Aseef For Respondent : Ms.J.R, Archana, Govt Advocate( Crl side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 324(4), 329(4), 351(3) of IPC r/w Section 3 of Prevention of damage to public property act in Crime No.62 of 2026, on the 1/6

file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that there was civil dispute pending between the petitioners herein and the defacto complainant. Due to which these petitioners joined hands with other accused and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and caused damages to the compound wall amounting to Rs.50,000/- Hence the case.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioners have restored the damages and they are ready to abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioners herein has caused damages to the compound wall belonging to the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the damages comes to around Rs.50,000/- and there is no previous cases pending against the petitioners. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by both counsel, nature of offence and there is no previous cases pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. .

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only ] each to the credit of Crime No.62 of 2026 before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, 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, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(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 3/6

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 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

10.02.2026 smn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Ponneri

2. The Inspector of Police,Minjur Police Station,Thiruvallur District 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104. 4/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

smn Crl.O.P.No.3092 of 2026 10.02.2026 5/6