S.Sivanesan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Sivanesan

2. Sumathi

3. Pushparaj

4. Susithra ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police E2 Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.143 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector Police, E2 Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore district.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Raveendran V For Respondent(s):

M/s.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal side) Mr.L.Albert Vinod, For intervenor

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 115 (2), 118 (1), 351 (2) of BNS Act, r/w Section 4 of WH, in Crime No.143 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant and the petitioners are relatives. During a property dispute, the petitioners allegedly abused and assaulted the defacto-complainant. Consequently, the defactocomplainant admitted to the hospital. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He further states that the alleged occurrence took place on 04.05.2026, and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the defactocomplainant has a share in the property. It was further submitted that, the petitioners assaulted the defacto-complainant while they were entering into the property and continue to threaten the defacto-complainant even now. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the invervenor's contention and submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the facts that the occurrence took place on 04.05.2026, the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital, the first and second petitioners are approximately sixty-six years of age, the fourth petitioner is a woman, and the parties are relatives involved in a property dispute, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. 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 Judicial Magistrate 1, Panruti, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, 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 third petitioner shall stay at Trichy and report before the Contonment police station daily Morning at 10.30 am and Evening at 5.30 pm. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required; the first, second and fourth petitioners shall report before the respondent Police 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.

10-06-2026 ep

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate 1,Panruti.

2.The Inspector of Police E2 Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

EP 10-06-2026