Manimegalai v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Manimegalai

2. Rajmohan ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, J-9, Thuraipakkam Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.84 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.84 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.Krishnakumar P For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.84 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is residing in the same locality as the petitioners and has two children. The first petitioner is a neighbour of the de facto complainant and is the owner of a dog. It is alleged that, in the month of December 2025, the said dog bit the son of the de facto complainant, on account of which prior enmity arose between the parties. It is the further allegation that, on 28.02.2026, during the morning hours, the first petitioner verbally abused the de facto complainant using filthy language. It is also alleged that, on the same day, the second petitioner, who is the brother of the first petitioner, abused the de facto complainant over a mobile phone. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/6

5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 28.02.2026 and, even according to the prosecution, there is no allegation of physical assault. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they had used filthy language. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioners had earlier allowed the dog to roam freely, which resulted in an attack on the de facto complainant's son, and that the present occurrence is in continuation of the earlier incident. Considering the fact that no one was injured in the present occurrence, which is of 28.02.2026, and also taking into account that the first petitioner is a woman, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

6. 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.II, Alandur, Chengalpattu District on condition that each of 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 3/6

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners fail 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 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 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

27.04.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Alandur, Chengalpattu District. 2.The Inspector of Police, J-9, Thuraipakkam Police Station, Chennai.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 27.04.2026 6/6