Mohammed Suhel Ahmed v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mohammed Suhel Ahmed Son of Saleem, No.9/5, Musthara Begum Street, Royapettah, Chennai -600014 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by Inspector of Police F-4, Thousand Police Station, Chennai - 600 006.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.108 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of respondent police and thereby render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. C.S.Srinivasan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 296(b), 121(1), 132, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.108 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, during an enquiry conducted based on a family dispute, the petitioner and others allegedly quarrelled in front of the police station, used filthy language against the police personnel, and prevented the public servant from discharging his duty. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused/A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail in Crl.MP.No.4319 of 2026 and A3 to A5 were also enlarged on bail in Crl.MP.No.4398 of 2026 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are totally six accused and the petitioner herein is arrayed as A6. She further submitted that due to a family dispute arising out of a love affair, a quarrel broke out between the parties in front of the police station, during which the accused abused the police personnel using filthy language. However, 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 totality of the circumstances of the case and the fact that the entire issue arose out of a dispute between two families with respect to a love affair and that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, 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 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, 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 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks 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 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 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

2.The Inspector of Police F-4, Thousand Police Station, Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 10-06-2026