B.Deepak Suresh @ Deepak, v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police(Law And Order), ,
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This matter came up for hearing today under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.It is submitted that in the order dated 23.07.2025 the crime number has been wrongly mentioned as "Crime No.355 of 2025" instead of "Crime No.335 of 2025". Further the Section number for the offences has been wrongly mentioned as "191(2), 296(B), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 324(4) and 351(3) of the BNS Act, 2023" instead of "191(2), 296(B), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 324(4) and 351(3) of the BNS Act, 2023 r/w Section 3 of the TNPPD Act".
3.Registry is directed to issue the fresh order copy after incorporating the necessary corrections. The petitioner to comply with the order within a period of fifteen days from the date of issuance of the above corrected order. 20.08.2025 rsi Page No.1 of 8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi 20.08.2025 Page No.2 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 17798 of 2025 B.Deepak Suresh @ Deepak, Petitioner Vs State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
(Crime No.355/2025) Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023, to grant an order of Anticipatory Bail directing that the Petitioner be enlarged on Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.335 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police (Law & Order) F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034, pending investigation of the case and pass such further other orders this Court may deem fit to the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
Page No.3 of 8
The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(B), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 324(4) and 351(3) of the BNS Act, 2023, in Crime No.355 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused attacked one Selva Bharathi on 22.05.2025 in a drunkern brawl at Lord of Drinks Bar, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case.
Page No.4 of 8
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner 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, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] if the petitioner 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 Page No.5 of 8
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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioner 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 petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for 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 petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 Page No.6 of 8
[(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
23.07.2025 kmm Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To
1. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Page No.7 of 8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.
kmm CRL.O.P.No.17798 of 23.07.2025 Page No.8 of 8