Vijay Kumar v. State Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Vijay Kumar, S/o.Parthiban

2. Chithra, D/o.Natrajan

3. Hemalatha, D/o.Natrajan

4. Vignesh Natrajan, S/o.Natrajan

5. Rani Natrajan, W/o.Natrajan ... Petitioners Vs.

State Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Koyambedu Chennai District.

Crime No.306 of 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 connection with the Crime No.306 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.J.Srinivas For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.306 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. This is a case and a counter case. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner made an inappropriate comment against the de-facto complainant's wife. In furtherance thereof, the present occurrence took place. Due to the argument between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, the petitioners attacked the de-facto complainant and thereby, the de-facto complainant sustained injury and admitted in the hospital for a period of 10 days. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that the de-facto complainant sustained serious injury and admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 10 days. He further submitted that A4 in this case has already been arrested. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

5. Though the de-facto complainant was suffered with severe injury, the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 are women, hence, taking into consideration of the gender and the fact that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital after getting treatment for a period of 10 days, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

6. Since the 4th petitioner has already been remanded to judicial custody, the bail application as against the 4th petitioner has become infructuous. The petitioner in respect of 1st petitioner is dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners 2, 3 and 5 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 V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners 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 petitioners 2, 3 and 5 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 3/6

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 2, 3 and 5 shall stay at Salem and report before the B1 Salem City Town Police Station, First Agraharam, Salem everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks;

(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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed insofar as the second, third and fifth petitioners are concerned and dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned and infructuous insofar as the fourth petitioner is concerned.

21.04.2026 mp 4/6

To 1.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Koyambedu Chennai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp Crl.OP.No.9914 of 2026 21.04.2026 6/6