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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Bharathi

2. Usha

3. Senthil Kumar ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Kilkodungaloor, Tiruvannamalai District.

(Crime No. 45 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 45 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr.Nelson Britto For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS (294, 323, 325 and 506-Part-II of IPC) in Crime No.45 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioners have abused and attacked the defacto complainant. Due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there is a case in counter and a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Therefore, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the occurrence took place on 16.03.2026 and while filling the soil in the neighbouring land by the de facto complainant, wordy quarrel picked up between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the injury sustained was serious and thereby constrained to be hospitalised till 23.03.2026 and thereafter discharged. Hence, 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 facts and circumstances of the case and while looking into the factual position, the petitioners 1 and 2 are female and 3rd petitioner is aged about 50 years and they are only neighbours of the de facto complainant. Hence, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the issue is between neighbours and the injured has already been discharged from hospital, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail with stringent 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 petitioners shall stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai everyday at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of another 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 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 Court, Vandavasi

2. The The Inspector of Police, Kilkodungaloor, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 26-03-2026