Nazrin Jaisha v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Nazrin jaisha Both are residing at No.7, Chakkarapani Road,2nd Land Extrn., Guindy Chennai - 600012.

2. Saied Abbas Mohamed koya @ Syed Abbas Both are residing at No.7, Chakkarapani Road,2nd Land Extrn., Guindy Chennai - 600012.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai District (Cr. No. 100 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.100 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. R KRISHNAMURTHY For Respondent(s):

MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE) For Intervener:

Mr.I.Gowri Shankar

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) of BNSS, in Crime No.100 of 2026 on the file of the

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, due to a land dispute, they assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and iron rod, as a result of which, the defacto complainant sustained 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. He further submitted that it is a case and case in counter and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the petitioners had also assaulted a minor and that such factum has not been taken into consideration by the respondent police. Despite there being allegations and counter allegation.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the occurrence took place on 31.03.2026 and the FIR was came to be registered on 01.04.2026 and that injured was discharged from the hospital on 08.04.2026. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners.

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

7. Admittedly, this is a case and case in counter. The entire issue revolves around a land dispute, and while looking at the factual position, the injured has been discharged from the hospital and admittedly the petitioners are relatives and neighbours. Hence, considering the totality of the above circumstances, this Court does not find any valid reasons for custodial interrogation. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

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 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, 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 stay at Erode and report before the Erode Town Police Station, daily at 10.30 am for a period of 15 days and thereafter appear before the respondent police 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.

24-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL (2/2) 24-04-2026