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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Arumugam

2. Prakash

3. Nareshkumar

4. Ramu @ Ramamoorthy

5. Ravi @ Raveendran Petitioners Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No. 339 of 2025) Respondent PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No. 339 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondents:

Mr.R.Vinotharaj Govt Advocate (crl Side)

ORDER

The Petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2) & 118(1) of BNS (Under Section 147, 447, 294(b), 323, 324 of IPC), in Crime No.339 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to the previous enmity regarding civil dispute between the petitioners and defacto complainant, on 24.05.2025, a wordy quarrel arose between the parties and in the said occurrence, the petitioners have abused the defacto complainant in filthy words and attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and no way connected with this crime and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant, due to which the defacto complainant sustained injuries and was admitted in hospital. He further submits that the victim has now been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the nature of dispute; that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following 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 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Chengalpattu, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 & 5 shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and the 4 th petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, as and when required;

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala reported in [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

10-06-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No. 339 of 2025) 2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Chengalpattu.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Chennai.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 16052 of 10-06-2025