Jeeva v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Jeeva

2. Rakesh

3. Meganathan ..Petitioners Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police Tiruttani Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

Crime No. 148 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in Crime No. 148 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tiruttani Police Station, Thiruvallur District. For Petitioners:

M Vetrivel For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2),191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 351(3), BNS r/w 27(1), Arms act and 3(1)of TNPPDL Act and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime

No.148 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant's son and threatened him with dire consequences. On the same day, they trespassed into their village and damaged the vehicles and other articles to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second petitioner has been remanded. He further submitted that the first and third petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the first and third petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the second petitioner has already been remanded under judicial custody. He further submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the first petitioner and three previous cases are pending against the third petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the first and third petitioners.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, and considering the nature of allegation, and upon the fact that the FIR came to be registered on 16.03.2026 and the injured has been discharged from hospital, and upon the further fact that the second petitioner has already been remanded and third petitioner has three previous cases pending against him, this Criminal Original petition in respect of the second petitioner stands dismissed as infructuous and as against the third petitioner, the petition stands dismissed. At the same time, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the first petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, on condition that the first petitioner shall execute a 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 first petitioner 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 first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday 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 first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner 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 first petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed insofar as the first Petitioner is concerned and dismissed as infructuous insofar as the second Petitioner is concerned and dismissed insofar as the third petitioner. 15-06-2026 SHL

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL To:

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani

2. The Inspector of Police Tiruttani Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras 15-06-2026