Ramkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Ramkumar S/o. Jeyaraj, R/0 1/10, Main Road, Near Canara Bank, Pallapatty, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Idappadi Police Station, Salem District.

Crime No. 140/2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.140 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Aakash Elango For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296 (b), 118(1) and 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 in Crime No.140 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.04.2026 at about 23.22 hours, when an injured person brought to the hospital, wherein the petitioner, who is an employee of the hospital was present and there was a dispute arose between the petitioner and the defacto complainant in connection with the events at the hospital, as a result of which, a wordy quarrel arose between them. In view of the same, he alleged to have abused him in a filthy language and also alleged to have committed acts amounting to assault and criminal intimidation. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and due to a dispute in connection with events at the hospital, a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that he is ready and willing to abide any condition that may be imposed by this court and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case. He further submitted that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and caused severe injuries to him. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, without prejudice to his defense and contention, is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- to any association. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

7. Considering the fact that the injured discharged from hospital and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has come forward to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the credit of "Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Chennai", this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Chennai and on such payment, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Idappadi 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 three 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.

06-05-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RPP/JRS

To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Idappadi 2.The Inspector of Police, Idappadi Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI J.

rpp/jrs 06-05-2026