Durairaj v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Durairaj S/o. Govindharaj, Attrangarai Street, Adhivasi Kudiyiruppu, Puliyambakkam, Kanchipuram District

2. Gopi@ Gopinath S/o. Kuppusamy, No.421, Periyar Nagar, Serkkadu, Walajabad,

3. Guptharajan @ Guptaraj S/o. Chandragupthan, No.18, V V , V V Kovil Street, Walajabad,

4. Kannan S/o. Balasubramanian, No.36, V V Kovil Street, Walajabad,

5. Dhanusu @ Thanusu @ Dhanasekaran S/o. Sundaramoorthy, No.4, Jothikanniyamman Koil Cross Street, Walajabad,

6. Amulraj @ Ramachandiran S/o. Govindhan, No.46, V V Kovil Street, Walajabad, Kanchipuram District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by The Inspector of police, Walajabad Police Station, (Crime No. 38 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in the hands of Respondent in Cr.No. 38 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

A.Saranraj For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 324(4), 351(4) of BNS, act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.38 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to the previous enmity regarding civil dispute between the petitioner and defacto complainant, a wordy quarrel arose between the parties and in the said occurrence, the petitioners have abused the defacto complainant in filthy words and attacked and also threatened her

with dire consequences. Hence the complainant.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the FIR was registered on 22.02.2026 and the entire issue revolves around the dispute raised by the petitioner in respect of alleged encroachment of the temple land. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner entered into the land of the defacto complainant on 19.07.2025 and 12.09.2025 and demolished the compound wall. He further submitted that the injured has been treated as an out patient. However, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Considering the factual position and also considering the fact that there is no serious injury to any one, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required; hence, this Court is inclined to

grant to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, on condition that the petitioners 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 the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned learned 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 pm., for a period of two 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

11-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram. 2.The Inspector of police, Walajabad Police Station, (Crime No. 38 of 2026) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 11-03-2026