Veeramani v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Veeramani S/o.Mahalingam, No.1/90, Jaya Salai, Pudupadi Village, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.

2. Krishnan S/o.Pachaiyappan, residing at Manthaiveli, Puthupadi, Periyakilukkundi, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.

3. Vijay S/o.Venkatesan, residing at Manthaiveli, Puthupadi, Periyakilukkundi, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.

..Petitioners Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Arcot Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime.No.92/2026) ..Respondent To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime.No.92/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners :

Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, 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(1), 118(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. in connection with the case in Crime No.93 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant were running separate Tiffin Centers on the roadside at Pudupadi. Due to business rivalry, frequent quarrel arose between them. While so, on 05.05.2026, when the first petitioner attempted to construct a tiffin centre using hollow blocks, the defacto complainant objected to and prevented such construction, whereupon both parties attacked each other.for which the defacto complainant made objection and preventing him from the said construction, for which they had attacked each other.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and they have has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also

submitted that complainant had already discharged from the hospital. 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 petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives. Due to the quarrel, the petitioners caused head injury to the defacto complainant and he was discharged from the hospital. It is also submitted that no previous case is pending against them. A counter case has also been filed. 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 trivial nature of the offence and taking into account the fact that the petitioners have no previous case, and the victims were already 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, Arcot 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 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, Arcot.

2.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

P.DHANABAL J.

nl 14-05-2026