Indra v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Indra 2.Tamilazhagan 3.Velumani ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Melchengam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent (Crime No.31 of 2026) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.31 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

M/s.R.Geethalakshmi For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS Act in Crime No.31 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that due to land dispute the 1/6

petitioners assaulted and abused the defacto complainant and also caused criminal intimidation. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he 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 would strongly oppose the bail application on the ground that the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant with knife and other deadly weapons and thereby the defacto complainant admitted in to the hospital and took treatment for 3 days. It is the further submission that the victim sustained serious injuries. However, he would fairly submit that there is no specific overt act against the first accused. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 2/6

6. Considering the serious injuries sustained by the victim and also upon the fact that the nature of allegation against the petitioners this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners 2 and 3 on anticipatory bail. However, the 1st petitioner being women and there is no specific overt act against her, this Court would like to consider her anticipatory bail application positively.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition in respect of the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, dismissed.

8. In so far the first petitioner is concerned, this Court is inclined to enlarge her on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, the first petitioner/Indra is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, on condition that the first petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of 3/6

the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (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 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 first petitioner shall sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., for a period of four 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 first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner 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 first petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 11.03.2026 4/6

ssi To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Melchengam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN,J., ssi 5/6

11.03.2026 6/6