Roshan 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 Roshan S/o.Krishnakumar, No,107/6, Nochikuppam, Mylapore, Chennai-600004 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police F3-Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai 600 034.

(Crime No. 177 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant an anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.177 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police herein.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr .Micheal Johnson K For Respondent(s):

MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.177 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was a tenant under the accused and had intended to purchase the property. It is alleged that the defacto complainant had parted with a sum of Rs.35 lakhs towards the proposed purchase. However, when the accused refused to sell the property and also refused to repay the amount, the accused allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant by using knife. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he attacked the defacto complainant with knife. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused/A2 was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.177 of 2026 and A3 was enlarged on bail by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.4600 of 2026 respectively. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are

totally four accused and the petitioner herein is ranked as A3. She further submitted that the occurrence took place on 07.05.2026 and that the injured was discharged on the same day. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that the co-accused have already enlarged on bail, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the 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 XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the 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 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 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

10-06-2026 DRL

To 1.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector Of Police F3-Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai 600 034.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 10-06-2026