Vimalraj v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Vimalraj S/o Ravi, No. 486, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Chettirimedu, Kancheepuram ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Baluchettychathram Police Station, Kancheepuram.

Crime No.96 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners / Accused in the event of arrest in the hands of the respondent in Crime No.96 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A.Sanjeev Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

2.The petitioner / Accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 126(2), 191(2), 296(b), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No. 96 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint regarding an incident that took place on 16.01.2026 at Kancheepuram involving wrongful restraint, rioting, obscene abuse, physical assault, and criminal intimidation, which led to the registration of the FIR on 17.03.2026. Hence, the case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the case is counter-case in nature and there is an inordinate delay of approximately two months in lodging the FIR. He further submitted that both the parties involved in the matter have subsequently entered into a compromise and have amicably settled the dispute. He added that the petitioner has clear antecedents with no previous cases pending against him and is fully ready to abide by any stringent conditions. Therefore, he prayed to grant an order of prearrest bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner considering

the nature of the allegations involving physical assault and rioting. He, however, acknowledged that the parties are attempting to settle the dispute. 6.Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 7.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in an altercation causing injury and threat to the defacto complainant, with the petitioner claiming it to be a delayed, counter-blast case that has now been settled through a compromise. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent, the matter is settled, and no previous case is pending against the petitioner.

8.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence alleged, the fact that an amicable compromise has been reached between the parties, and also considering the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant an order of prearrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i)The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of arrest or in the event of surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram within a period of 15 days from today, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with two sureties for a like sum of

Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram;

(ii)The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity; (iii)The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police, daily twice at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders; (iv)The petitioner shall not enter or come near the residential premises or the workplace of the defacto complainant;

(v)The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by police as and when required;

(vi)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; (vii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.

21-05-2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No 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 official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

SHA To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram.

2.The Inspector of Police No. 486, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Chettirimedu, KancheepuramBaluchettychathram Police Station, Kancheepuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

21-05-2026