Rajendran v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.Nos.10666 and 10667 of 2026 Rajendran ... Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.10666 of 2026)

1. Soundar G

2. Ramar C ... Petitioners (in Crl.OP.No.10667 of 2026) Vs.

The State represented by:

The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District.

... Respondent ( in both Crl.OPs) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on pre arrest in connection with Cr.No.109 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. 1/7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sheik Ismail (in Crl.OP.No.10666 of 2026) : Mr.P.N.Vignesh, (in Crl.OP.No.10667 of 2026) : For Intervenor : Mr.N.Ponraj (in both Crl.OPs) For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ( in both Crl.OPs) COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harrasment to Women Act in Cr.No.109 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to dispute regarding sale of immovable properties between the parties. When the defacto complainant had gone to the office of A1 for negotiation regarding execution of sale deed, the petitioners refused to execute the sale deed and abused the defacto complainant and his sister's husband in a filthy language , assaulted them with hands, legs and iron rod and also threatened them with dire 2/7

consequence and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained injuries which led to registration of the case. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was a dispute with respect to the sale of house and in this connection, this occurrence took place on 26.02.2026 and the FIR came to registered only on 03.03.2006. He further submitted that this Court has already granted bail to the co-accused vide order dated 10.04.2026 in Crl.OP.No.9054 of 2026. The Petitioners herein are A1, A3 and A4. According to the prosecution, the allegations against this petitioners are that the defacto complainant had purchased the petitioners property. Since the defacto complainant has not paid the sale consideration, A1 did not sign in execution of sale deed and in furtherance thereof, there was some wordy quarrel and the present FIR came to to be registered. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate for the investigation and also ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3/7

4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto complainant is aged about 67 years and he is taking treatment. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner herein are A1, A3 and A4 and the injured has already discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

7. Considering the registration of an FIR on 03.03.2026 for the occurrence took place on 26.02.2026, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. 4/7

8. 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 learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds 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 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, E1-Singanallur Police Station daily, Coimbatore at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week;

5/7

(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. 05.06.2026 Vv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal 2.The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal District.

3. The Inspector of Police, E1-Singanallur Police Station daily, Coimbatore

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104. 6/7

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.Nos.10666 and 10667 of 2026 05.06.2026 7/7