Mr. Seshan v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Seshan .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8891 of 2026 Vijaya Bharathi .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8892 of 2026 Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.65 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.Gokula Rao For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Kathiravan

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8891 of 2026 is the son of one Vijaya Bharathi, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8892 of 2026. The defacto complainant is none other than Vijaya Bharathi's brother's wife and there is a property dispute between them, due to which, there was a wordy quarrel and they attacked each other. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court . Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there is property dispute, due to which, they attacked each other and the present FIR came to be registered based on the direction of the Judicial Magistrate. 2/6

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioners have misbehaved with the defacto complainant, and if they were granted anticipatory bail, it would cause threat to the life of the defacto complainant.

6. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioners except using misogynistic word against the defacto complainant, there is no injury to the defacto complainant, this Court is of the firm view that that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are 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 XV Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai , on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: 3/6

(a) If the petitioners 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 shall stay at Coimbatore and report before the Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Polcie Station daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required;

(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. 27.04.2026 sma 4/6

To

1. XV Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai 2.The Inspector of Police, H-3 Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

sma 27.04.2026 6/6