S.Ramachandran v. State Rep.By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. S.Ramachandran S/o.N.Samy Kannu, M.595, 27th Cross Street, 4th main road, Chennai.
2. R.Bharathi W/o.Ramachandran, M.595, 27th Cross Street, 4th main road, Chennai.
..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police, Vaduvar Police Station, Thiruvarur District.
Cr.No.109 of 2026.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.109 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and pass such other or further orders as this Honble court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Bharath Kumar For Respondent(s):
MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 337 & 340 of BNS, 2023 in Crime
No.109 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to a property dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners, a complaint came to be lodged, based on which the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2026 against the petitioners. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are brothers and the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. He further submitted that the present complaint has been lodged based on the registration of the patta in favour of an unknown person and that a civil dispute between the parties is pending in O.S.No.19 of 2025. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the dispute pertains to immovable property and that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and that there was no previous cases against them. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the entire issue rests upon documentary evidence and the fact that the petitioners, aged about 74 and 68 years respectively, being the senior citizens, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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 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 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.
09-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvarur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vaduvar Police Station, Thiruvarur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
DRL 09-06-2026