Bharani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Bharani W/o.Palanivelan, No.136, Chetty Street, Nayadumangalam Village, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. Jagadeesh S/o.Anjan, No.2/235, Vadakku Street,Kappalur VillageKalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. Anjan S/o.Rajamanickam, North Street, Kappalur Village, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

4. Ganesh S/o.Rangan, No.2/235, Vadakku Street, Kappalur Village, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

5. Balaji S/o.Rangan, No.2/235, Vadakku Street, Kappalur Village, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Petitioners Vs

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Kalasapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai district.

Crime No. 114/2026.

..Respondent To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 114 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police station. For Petitioners :

Mr.Sathiyaraj E.

For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused-2, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2) of B.N.S. in connection with the case in Crime No.114 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother-in-law of the first petitioner. It is alleged that the first petitioner, along with her relative, came to the house of the defacto complainant, abused and attacked her and further threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first petitioner got marriage with the son of the defacto complainant. Later she was

pregnant and stayed with her parent house. After the birth of the child, the first petitioner and her relatives went to the matrimonial house, wherein the defacto complainant and his family members abused and attacked the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant and the same is registered in Crime No.113 of 2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, would submit that due to previous enmity, they attacked each other with wooden logs and it is a case in counter. It is also submitted that the injured victim was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the offence and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has no previous case, and the victim was discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District on condition that 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. [c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation by the respondent police.

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

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [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 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 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 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, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District

2. The Inspector of Police Kalasapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

P.DHANABAL, J.

nl 14-05-2026