Arumugam v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Arumugam S/o.Krishnappan, No.479, Pillaiyar Street, Nandhimangalam, Padiagraharam Post, Thiruvannamalai District-606 705.

2. Elango @ Elangovan S/o.Sundaramoorthynayinar, No.298, Eswaran Koil Street, Karapattu Post, Thiruvannamalai District-606705.

3. Naveenkumar S/o.Purushothaman, No.117 Main Street, Kallaraibadi, Masbar Post, Thiruvannamalai District-606 702.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State by The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

Cr.No.105 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in cr.No.105 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Silambu Selvan S 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 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.105 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.05.2026, during a meeting organised by the defacto complainant, the petitioners allegedly prevented him from participating in the meeting, resulting in a wordy quarrel, and thereafter damaged his bike. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the present case has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 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 alleged occurrence took place on 24.05.2026, whereas the FIR was came to be registered on 30.05.2026. She further submitted that the petitioners has burnt the defacto complainant's vehicle and that there are no previous cases against them. Hence, she 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, the fact that no one sustained any injury, the alleged occurrence took place on 24.05.2026 and the FIR was registered on 30.05.2026, with a delay of six days, and that the petitioners have no previous cases, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Kalsapakkam, 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 daily at 10.30 a.m, for a period of 15 days and thereafter 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 DRL

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Kalsapakkam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 10-06-2026