Tamilarasan K v. State Rep By Inspector Ofpolice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Tamilarasan K S/o.Kannan
2. Vigneshwaran K S/o.Kannan
3. Kannan S/o.Arumugam ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police Chennimalai Police Station, Erode.
(Crime No.94 of 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 the arrest in connection with the Crime No.94 of f2026, on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Nalliyappan R For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners / accused, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 324(4) and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, in connection with Crime No.94 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2026 at 18.15 hours, there was a dispute between the de-facto complainant and the petitioners with regard to parking of two-wheeler vehicle. During the conflict, the defacto complainant had picked up a quarrel with the petitioners and abused them in a filthy language and physically assaulted them. The 1st petitioner was assaulted with stone and pushed down, and he sustained a serious head injury and injuries on other parts of the body. The 1st petitioner was immediately taken to the hospital and was admitted as inpatient and is stated to be undergoing medical treatment for the same. However, the defacto complainant has lodged the complaint against the petitioners. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are neighbours and there has been dispute between them, he further added that during a dispute the 1st petitioner sustained injuries and he is the victim in this case. He would further submit that the above facts have deliberately been suppressed by the defacto complainant. To give a criminal colour to this dispute, the de-facto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. While this is the second anticipatory bail application, the earlier petition in Crl. O.P. No. 10450 of 2026 having been dismissed on 27.04.2026, the learned counsel notes that the injured individuals have already been discharged from the hospital. He
acknowledges that the co-accused was arrested and released on bail and there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner, and prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature, however, the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the co-accused was already arrested and enlarged on bail. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, the nature of the offences, injured was discharged from the hospital and the fact that the dispute between neighbours and the co-accused has been arrested and released on bail and there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to standard reporting 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate at
Perundurai, on condition that each 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 Judicial Magistrate, and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for investigation.
[b] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves 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 B.N.S. 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 Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.
2.The Inspector of Police Chennimalai Police Station, Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
P.DHANABAL J.
MKA/SHA 14-05-2026 (1/2)