Madhiyazhagan. D v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Madhiyazhagan.D 2.Kumar.L 3.Thiyagaraj.S ... Petitioners Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu.

(Crime No.64 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.64 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Aravindhan For Intervenor : Mr.S.Balasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 189(2), 329(3), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2)(b) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.64 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with other accused, intimidated the de facto complainant, trespassed into the de facto complainant's property and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9563 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026. He further submitted that the FIR came to be registered pursuant to the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate and that the occurrence took place on 21.04.2025. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners are katta panchayatars in the locality and are rowdy elements. He would further submit that the de facto complainant is peacefully carrying on agriculture and running a company. However, the petitioners, by demanding mamul and fabricating records, are creating difficulties for the de facto complainant in carrying on cultivation.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the anticipatory bail and would contend that except for the above allegations, there are no other serious allegations against the petitioners.

6. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the FIR came to be registered pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month, and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

4/6

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09.06.2026 cda To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

cda 09.06.2026 6/6