Jayanthi v. State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Jayanthi ..Petitioner Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
Cr.No . 150/2026.
..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in Crime No. 150 of 2026,on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sholavaram police Station, Thiruvallur District. For Petitioner:
Mr.M.Vetrivel For Respondent:
Mr.P.Dhileepan Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) BNS Act r/w Sec 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.150 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant along with other accused using stones. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and that she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that she is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and she 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 submitted that totally there are three accused. In the present application, the petitioner is arrayed as A1. The specific overt act against the petitioner is that she assaulted the de facto complainant along with other accused using stones and the de facto complainant sustained laceration injury and treated as Out Patient. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, and upon the fact that the
injury is simple in nature and the injured person has been treated as Out patient. Hence, this Court is of the firm 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.
7. 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 Judicial Magistrate II Ponneri, 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 one week 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.
21-04-2026 SHL To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate II Ponneri
2. The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
SHL 21-04-2026