← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/14898/2026granted

Karthik.R v. State By The Inspector Of Police,

2026-06-12Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Karthik.R

2. Senthil Kumar

3. Praveen Kumar. S

4. Babloo @ Bakakrishnan.M

5. Ajay @ Dinakaran.M

6. Gowtham T

7. Vinoth.S

8. Dinesh.R ..Petitioners Vs State by:

The Inspector of Police, T-12, Poonamallee Police Station, Chennai - 600 056.

[Crime No.0259 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners/accused 1 to 8 on Bail in the event of their arrest in the above Crime No.0259 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr.M.Fazulul Haq For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (previously U/s. 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), in Crime No.0259 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and defacto complainant are relatives. Due to property dispute, both the family members created a ruckus and assaulted each other. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that

there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners and that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, 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-II, Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056, 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 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m. 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 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.

12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA

To

1. Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056.

2. The Inspector of Police, T-12, Poonamallee Police Station, Chennai - 60 056.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 12-06-2026