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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Raja

2. Adhi @ Adhikesavan

3. Sekar

4. Suresh

5. Elumalai

6. Kuppas @ Kuppan

7. Moorthy

8. Siva

9. Satheesh @ Satheeshkumar 10.Allimuthu 11.Yakkesh @ Yakkesh Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Padalam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

Crime No.30 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the Respondent police concerned in Crime No.30 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Padalam Police Station, Chengalpattu District or on their appearance before the court and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A Murugavel For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners/accused 1 to 11, apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 304(2), 324(2) of BNS Act, in Crime No.30 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and others, in furtherance of their common intention, unlawfully assembled and damaged the house and compound wall of the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the 11th petitioner herein snatched 5 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. However,

he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the representations made on either side, considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the fact that injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is no previous cases pending against this petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10 a.m., every Saturday for a period of 4 weeks; [b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD To 1.Judicial Magistrate No.II, Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District 2.State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Padalam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

Crime No.30 of 2026 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

P.DHANABAL, J.

GD 13-05-2026