S.Ravishankar v. The State Rep.By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. S.Ravishankar, S/o.Shanmugam
2. S.Sasikumar, S/o.Shankar ..Petitioners Vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police, K5 Peravallur Police Station, Perambur, Chennai.
(Crime No.82 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.82 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :
Mr.K.Rahul For Respondent :
Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor :
Mr.P.Narayanaprasad
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 118(1), Page No.1 of 6
115(1) and 321(3) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.82 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners, along with other accused, were involved in wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant and assaulted the defacto complainant with a knife, causing severe injuries. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners have no previous case pending against them. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from hospital and this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners and if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may abscond and Page No.2 of 6
commit similar offences in the future. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that he is going to file an intervening application in this case. He strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, since the offence committed by the petitioners are grave in nature.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offences, and the fact that the injured has been discharged from hospital and also considering the fact that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 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 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Court at Chennai, on condition that Page No.3 of 6
each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that:
[a] the petitioners and 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 petitioners shall report before the Chengalpattu Town Police Station everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
[f] 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 Page No.4 of 6
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
14-05-2026 sp To
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Court at Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, K5 Peravallur Police Station, Perambur, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Page No.5 of 6
P.DHANABAL, J.
sp 14-05-2026 Page No.6 of 6