Uma v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Uma Wife of Mr. Saravanan, 5/241, Pillayar Kovil Street, Okkiyampettai, Thuraipakkam, Kancheepuram District - 600 097.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, T -15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai, (Crime No. 72 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners/ Accused on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 72 of 2026 pending investigation on file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. M. Murugan For Respondent(s):

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) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.72 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she, along with her son (A1), assaulted her daughter- in-law, who is the defacto complainant and caused injuries, thereby she suffered fix. It is further alleged that the petitioner and A1 attacked the defacto complainant using a beer bottle, thereby inflicting injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are two accused and one Sanjay, who is the son of the present petitioner and the defacto complainant is none other than the daughter-in-law of the present petitioner. He further submitted that A1 was remanded to judicial custody and enlarged on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are not seriously disputed. He further submitted that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Considering the above circumstances, it is seen that the petitioner is the mother of the first accused, the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the co-accused (A1) was enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and considering that the petitioner is a woman, this Court is of the firm view, that 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chengalpattu District, 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 daily at 10.30 a.m 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 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.

27-04-2026 DRL To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chengalpattu District.

2.The Inspector of Police, T -15, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 27-04-2026