Bakkiyalakshmi v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Bakkiyalakshmi ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep by, Inspector of Police, M6 Manali Police Station, Chennai District.
[Crime No.270 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest on connection with Crime No.270 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of Respondent Police.
For Petitioner:
Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent:
Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.270 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2026, the petitioner went to the defacto complainant's shop and, following a wordy quarrel, damaged the properties inside the shop. Hence, the case.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that no one was injured in the incident. He further submitted that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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. From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) it is seen that the petitioner had no bad antecedents. Considering that no one was injured in the incident and that the petitioner is a woman, 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 her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, 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, 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.
12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur.
2. Inspector of Police, M6 Manali Police Station, Chennai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
VEDA 12-06-2026