Balamurugan v. The State Represented By Station House Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Balamurugan ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by Station House officer Pudhuchatram Police station Cuddalore District.
Cr. No. 435 of 2025.
..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 435 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Puduchatram police station. For Petitioner:
Mr.Thamaraiselvan R For Respondent:
Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Order The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 329(4), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS r/w. 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.435 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and his wife. Due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are neighbours and the alleged occurrence took place on 07.09.2025 and FIR was registered on 09.12.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the de facto complainant sustained simple injury and treated as Out Patient. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, at this length of time, this Court is of a view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
(a) If the petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
26-03-2026 SHL To:
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo
2. The Station House officer Pudhuchatram Police station Cuddalore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
SHL 26-03-2026