Perumal v. The State Rep. By Sub- Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Perumal ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by Sub- Inspector of Police, Dusi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

(Ref. Cr.No.13/2026 dt.24.01.2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Raja For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 296 (b), 115 (2), 118 (1), 351

(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, equal to Indian Penal Code under Section 294 (b), 323, 324, 506 (2), in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defactocomplainant are neighbours. Due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner abused the defacto-complainant in filthy language, assaulted her and also threatened with dire consequences. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 10.02.2026. He further submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioner. Hence, he submitted that this is a fit case in which the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent is fair enough to submit that from the occurrence took place in furtherance of a wordy quarrel and that the injured has also sustained only minor injury and that investigation has been completed. He further submits that there is no previous case as against the petitioner. 5.In such view of the position, taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 10.02.2026 and also considering the age of the petitioner, that is 57 years, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police in the morning at 10.30 AM and evening at 5.30 PM for a period two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

05-03-2026 ep To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai.

2.Sub Jail, Vandavasi, Tiruvannamalai.

3.The Sub- Inspector of Police, Dusi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.