Rajesh G v. State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rajesh G S/o. Esuf ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, W13 All Women police station, Washermnepet, Chennai District.

(Crime No. 15 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 15 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector police, W13 All Women police station, Washermnepet, Chennai District.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Madhankumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 332(c) and 75 of BNSS, 2023, in connection with Crime No.15 of 2026 seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2026 at about 3.15 p.m, the there was a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, who is a

tenant of the petitioner. During the dispute, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant using filthy language and attacked the defacto complainant with hands. The defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and defacto complainant is residing as a tenant in the petitioner's house. He further submits that the petitioner went to the defacto complainant's house to collect rent and the defacto complainant had in turn lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent Police to wrongly gain money from the petitioner. It is the further case that the petitioner was also brutally attacked by the defacto complainant's husband and a counter case has also been registered against the defacto complaint in FIR No.84 of 2026, before R.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai. He submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and that there no previous case pending against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had earlier preferred anticipatory bail applications before this Court in

Crl.O.P.No.7593 of 2026 and Crl.O.P.No.9946 of 2026, however the same were dismissed on 25.03.2026 and 21.04.2026 respectively. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offences, and also the fact that the petitioner is having no previous case pending against him and that a counter case has also been registered, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XV Magistrate at George Town, Chennai on condition that the petitioner 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNSS, 2023.

14-05-2026 MKA/SHA Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To:

1.The XV Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, W13 All Women Police station, Washermnepet,Chennai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL J.

MKA/SHA CRL OP No. 13035 of 2026 14-05-2026