Venkataramana v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Venkataramana ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep by its The Inspector of Police, Pallipet Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

Crime No.5/2026 ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in the above Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of Pallipet Police Station, Tiruvallur District. For Petitioner:

Mr.D. Magesh For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 79, 351(3) of BNS (294(b), 509, 506 of IPC) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the de facto complainant went to the accused house for some civil dispute, at that time, the petitioner scolded and abused her with filthy language. Hence, this case.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 10.01.2026 and that there is civil dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed the bail as to the conduct of one Lakshmanan against the de fact complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner explained that Lakshmanan is the son of this petitioner. He being a juvenile has already enlarged on bail and the only overt act against the petitioner is that he has abused the de fact complainant with filthy language.

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

7. In such view if the overt act pleaded against this petitioner, taking into consideration of the date of registration of FIR dated 11.01.2026, this Court is of the view that at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

8. 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, Pallipet, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 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 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.

08-04-2026 SHL

To:

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipet

2. The Inspector of Police, Pallipet Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 08-04-2026