R Pranav v. State Represented 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 R Pranav ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai - 600 004 ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners / Accused in the event of his arrest in Crime No.259 of 2026, on such conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Abel Selvakumar For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 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 296B, 118(1), 351(3), and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No. 259 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint dated 05.05.2026 to the respondent police alleging that on 04.05.2026, the petitioner visited her workplace and assaulted her, causing bleeding injuries near her eye. Hence, the case. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated due to a personal relationship dispute. He would further submit that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are practicing advocates in the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

He stated that on the date of the incident, the petitioner visited her office only for an amicable discussion at her repeated request. A wordy quarrel ensued where the defacto complainant assaulted the petitioner, and when the petitioner tried to restrain her, her own eyeglasses accidentally hit her face, causing a minor injury. He further submitted that no weapons were used in the alleged offence, and the petitioner himself admitted her to the hospital. The injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day after receiving three stitches, with no grave injuries reported.

petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to grant an order of pre-arrest 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 at the workplace and harassment of a woman. He, however, confirmed that the injured person was discharged from the hospital on the same day after receiving three stitches and that no other previous case is pending against the petitioner. 6.Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 7.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant at her workplace and caused injuries.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate, no weapons were used, the dispute arises out of a personal relationship, the injured was discharged immediately on the same day, and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. 8.

case is pending against the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest 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 XVIII Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet within a period of 15 days from today, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) along with two sureties for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet;

(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, weekly twice on every Monday and Friday at 10.00 a.m. until further orders; (iv)The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by police as and when required;

(v)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; (vi)On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned The XVIII Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet 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 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 XVIII Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet.

2.The Inspector of Police E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai - 600 004.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

21-05-2026