Vijayaraj v. State Rep.By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Vijayaraj

2. Sathiskumar

3. Kumar

4. Vimal Kumar

5. Rajan ..Petitioners Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police, Velachery Police Station, Chennai District.

(Crime No.595 of 2025) ..Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent in Crime No.595 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Velachery Police Station, Chennai District. For Petitioners :

Mr. B. Devakumar For Respondent :

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 329(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in Crime No.595 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.

The allegations against the petitioners are that they are joined hands with other accused, unlawfully entered into the property of the defacto complainant and caused damage to the iron gate and the compound wall. It is further alleged that the damage caused is worth about Rs.90,000/- Hence, the present complaint has been registered against the petitioners. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have never been involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that 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. Therefore, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners were allegedly trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and caused damage to the iron gate and compound wall. It was further submitted that the worth about the damage is approximately Rs.90,000/-. The incident was captured in the CCTV footage. So far, no one was arrested. Though the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, the investigation is still in progress. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the fact that the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, and that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XVIII - Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.6,000/- each (Rupees Six Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.595 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police within a period of fifteen (15) days from today, failing which, anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand dismissed automatically;

(b) 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 shall stand automatically cancelled;

(c) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for suretyship (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;

(d) The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10:30 A.M., for a period of two weeks, and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (e) 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 were 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];

(f) If the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

16-02-2026 klt To 1.

The learned XVIII - Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.

The Inspector of Police, Velachery Police Station, Chennai District. 3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

klt 16-02-2026