Murugan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Murugan 324, Ganthi Nagar, Aniyalai, Padagam, Tiruvannamalai

2. Aravinthan 324, Ganthi Nagar, Aniyalai, Padagam, Tiruvannamalai

3. Mariyammal 324, Ganthi Nagar, Aniyalai, Padagam, Tiruvannamalai ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police Kalsapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

(Cr.No.107 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.107 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kalsapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District / Respondent Police and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and thus render justice

For Petitioner(s):

M/S. T Shanmugam For Respondent(s):

Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners/A1 to A3 apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.107 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the defacto complainant is a neighbour to the petitioners. There was a quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, regarding boundary dispute, due to which, the first petitioner has bite the defacto complainant's ear and caused injuries to him and the other petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant with boulder and iron rod and also threatened him with dire consequence. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant and the first petitioner has also made a bite on the defacto complainant's ear. It is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) the first Petitioner has two previous cases.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submit that even those cases were registered only based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) objected this Petition, and fairly submits the injured has been discharged from the hospital on the next day ie., 25.04.2026.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured discharged from the hospital on the next day and the third petitioner is being a women and the entire issue revolves around boundary dispute, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District

Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kalsapakkam on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds 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 learned 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (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.

02-06-2026 Vv To

1. The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kalsapakkam.

2. The Inspector of Police Kalsapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 02-06-2026 VV

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VV 02-06-2026