Abdul Rahim v. The State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Abdul Rahim

2. Saithunesa

3. Jannath ..Petitioners Vs The State rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District.

Crime No.137 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.137 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Ms.R.Raji For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners/A1 to A3 apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 74 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.137 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to personal animosity and previous enmity, a quarrel took place between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, during which both parties abused each other in filthy language, attacked one another and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence arose only due to personal dispute and both sides were involved in a wordy quarrel. It is submitted that the defacto complainant had a relationship with the son of the first accused and when the same was questioned, a false complaint has been lodged. It is also submitted that Petitioner No.1/A1 has already been arrested on 18.03.2026. Further, as against petitioners No.2 & 3, there is no specific overt act and custodial interrogation is not required. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioners are ready to cooperate 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 fairly submitted that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are simple in nature. It is further submitted that A1 has already been arrested. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that Petitioner No. 1/A1 has already been arrested; therefore, the anticipatory bail petition against Petitioner No. 1 does not survive. Insofar as Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are concerned, it is seen that the occurrence arose out of a personal dispute and both sides sustained only simple injuries and were discharged on the same day. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the injuries are simple in nature and that custodial interrogation is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to Petitioners No. 2 and 3.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as against Petitioner No. 1 and allowed as against Petitioners No. 2 and 3, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the Petitioners No.2 & 3, 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, Thiruvennainallur, on condition that the Petitioners No.2 & 3, shall execute a bond each 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 No.2 & 3 fails 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 Petitioners No.2 & 3 shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the Petitioners No.2 & 3 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 No.2 & 3 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 24-03-2026 NSL

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 24-03-2026