Prabhu v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Prabhu Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

Respondent(s) PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in connection in Crime No.384 of 2025 on the file of the M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.D.Sugumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinothraja Govt Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1),

351(3) of BNS (2023) (Old Section 147, 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.384 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a verbal altercation between the defacto complainant and other accused person at a bar escalated into a physical fight, during which the other accused hit the complainant with a beer bottle, and the petitioner was among those who supported the other accused in the altercation. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide to any condition that may be imposed by this Court and the co-accused were already enlarged on bail by an order dated 29.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.480 of 2025, by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police on instructions submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as sixth accused in the above said crime number and the petitioner has no previous case. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides, nature of the allegations, the co-accused were already released on bail and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif

cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram+ 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, and on proof of payment of deposits, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] 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 Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required;

[f]the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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];

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

10-06-2025 Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

jai CRL OP No. 16416 of 10-06-2025