Seenu @ Boonathai Seenivasan v. State Rep. 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

1. Seenu @ Boonathai Seenivasan S/o.Ramalingam, No.131,Paygopuram,6th Street, Tiruvannamalai District-606601.

2. Manikandan S/o.Mani, No.176,Thiyagi Annamalai Nagar, Tiruvannamalai District 606601.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.88 of 2026 on the file of The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District and pass any other orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Lingakumar For Respondent(s):

MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and

351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.88 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that due to previous enmity, on 22.03.2026, the petitioners, who are A1 and A3 assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and coconut, thereby, causing simple injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. 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 A1 has 8 previous cases under the TNP Act, out of which 7 cases have been disposed of and one case is pending. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, there are no previous cases. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. 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. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the firm view that no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. 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 No.I, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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 report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am 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 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.

21-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 21-04-2026