Sankar @ Shankareshwaran v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Sankar @ Shankareshwaran S/o. Elango, V25, V Block, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore.

2. Prasanth S/o. Sivan, 4/85, Kukkalthorai, Kukkal, Nilgiris District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Kothagiri Police Station, Nilgiris District.

Cr.No.101 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.101 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner(s):

MR. Prabhu For Respondent(s):

MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) For Intervener:

MR.S.SATHISH

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 324(2), 351(2)

of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002, in Crime No.101 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners denied the defacto complainant accommodation at their resort, abused and threatened her, and alleged tampered her with vehicle. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the resort owner and that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the petitioners who maintain the resort had assaulted the defacto complainant, in furtherance there was a wordy quarrel and they damaged the property worth about Rs.75,000/-. Hence, he prays for dismissal of anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.04.2026, whereas the

FIR was registered on 08.05.2026. Hence, 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 nature of the allegations, the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.04.2026, the FIR was registered on 08.05.2026 and there is a delay in registration of the FIR, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond 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 slip (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 two weeks 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.

22-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kothagiri Police Station, Nilgiris District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL (2/2) 22-06-2026