Madras High CourtCRL OP/8962/2026granted

P.Prabakaran v. The State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

2026-04-09Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. P.Prabakaran S/o.Panneerselvam, Residing at No.47 East Street, Sekkangudi Post, Chidambaram TK, Cuddalore District.

2. P.Meenatchi W/o.P.Prabakaran, Both are Resding at No.47 East Street, Sekkangudi Post, Chidambaram TK, Cuddalore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Orathur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

Crime No.28/2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in crime no. 28 /2026 On the file of Respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.Hari Priya For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for

the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(1), 118(1), 351(3), 74 of BNS, in Crime No.28 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that due to previous money dispute, on the date of occurrence, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant, thereby causing injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was a case and case in counter and that the occurrence took place on 29.03.2026. He further submitted that, in the counter complaint given by the petitioners, the defacto complainant is an accused, and anticipatory bail has already been granted in the said case by the learned Principal District Judge. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries and that the first petitioner attacked him with a knife on the lower back. He further submitted that the defacto complainant underwent treatment for eight days and

was later 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. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, and that there are serious allegations against the first petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner and the petition is dismissed as far as the first petitioner is concerned.

7. As regards the second petitioner is concerned, the FIR does not discloses any allegation as against the second petitioner/Meenatchi and that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the firm view, that at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the second petitioner who is a woman is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the second petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days

from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District on condition that the second 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 second 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;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the second petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the second 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 second petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Orathur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

Crime No.28/2026.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 09-04-2026