Mr.Sathish v. The State Rep. By The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. SATHISH 2.TAMILARASAN 3.LOKESH Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Latheri Police Station, Vellore.

Crime No.52 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petitions is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on Bail in the event of their arrest, pending investigation in the Crime No. 52 of 2025, on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

M/s. M.MOHAMED RIYAS

For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS 2023 in Crime No.52 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2025, the petitioner along with other accused waylaid the defacto complainant, provoked a quarrel due to previous enmity and assaulted him with knife, causing injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioners are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for their release. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and on instructions submitted that although the lower court had granted anticipatory bail to the first petitioner in Crime No.46 of 2025 with certain conditions, the first petitioner failed to comply with those conditions, prompting the respondent police to file a petition seeking cancellation of bail and the learned counsel further submitted that there are no previous case pending against the second and third petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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, the antecedents of the second and third petitioners and since the custodial interrogation of the second and third petitioners are not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second and third petitioners

with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the second and third petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Katpadi on condition that the each of the petitioners 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 second and thirds petitioners 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 second and thirds petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks;

[d] the second and thirds petitioners 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 second and thirds petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the second and thirds petitioners 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 second and thirds petitioners 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.

8. Considering the adverse antecedents of the first petitioner who is a history-sheeter and he failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the lower Court in respect of Crime No.46 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the first petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the first petitioner stands dismissed.

12-06-2025 Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, No 7/ 271 Latheri Colony Latheri village VelloreLatheri Police Station, Vellore.

2. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Katpadi.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

jai CRL OP No. 16510 of 12.06.2025 12-06-2025