Karthi v. State By Its Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Karthi 2.Nandha @ Nadhakumar ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep by Inspector of Police Kanchi Taluk Police Station Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District.

Crime No.221 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.221 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner :

Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 109 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 (Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC) in Crime No.221 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek 1/6

anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant due to which, the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and also abused him in a filthy language. Due to which, he sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they 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 submitted that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and also abused him in a filthy language. Due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. He also submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

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, nature of allegation and also the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram district on condition that 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, 3/6

the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the 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 petitioners 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] the 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 petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for 4/6

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 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.

19.06.2025 nr M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

nr 5/6

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District.

2.Inspector of Police Kanchi Taluk Police Station Kanchipuram Kanchipuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

19.06.2025 6/6