Ahron Raj And Another v. The 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. Ahron Raj

2. Daniel Raj ..Petitioners Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, H-6, RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.152 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.152/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-6RK Nagar Police Station registered for the offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) of BNS Act.

For Petitioners:

Mr.V.Karthick For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act in Crime No.152 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to some wordy quarrel, the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case without any basis. It is submitted that there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioners and the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and he will appear before the respondent police as and when required. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioners will not abscond or tamper with witnesses and are ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that due to some wordy quarrel, the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant. He further submitted that injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides that injured has been discharged from the hospital and the occurrence took place on 26.04.2026, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the

petitioners are not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

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 XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond each 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 twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of one month 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 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, H-6, RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 02-06-2026