G Rajendiran v. The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. G.Rajendiran

2. G.Munnusamy

3. Senthil

4. Saroja

5. Mahalakshmi ..Petitioners Vs The State of Tamil nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Thittagudi Police Station, Thittagudi, Cuddalore District.

Crime No.108/2026 ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest at the hand of respondent police in connection with Crime Number 108 of 2026 on the file of Thittagudi Police Station, Cuddalore District. For Petitioner:

Mr.T.Thiruvathini For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (crl.Side) For Intervenor:

Mr.K.Kesavan

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS r/w 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998 in Crime No.108 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to water flowing issue between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners have assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. It is also submitted that this is a case and counter case; hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that injured has already been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the injured sustained a grievous injury; hence, he opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that this is a case and counter-case. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances including the fact that the occurrence took place on 02.06.2026, the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and at this length of time, this Court finds that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Furthermore, since the 4th and 5th petitioners are women, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 2 to 5, subject to certain conditions. However, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 5 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, Tittagudi Combined Court, on condition that the petitioners 2 to 5 shall execute a bond each 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 2 to 5 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 2 to 5 shall report before the respondent Police, everyday 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 2 to 5 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 2 to 5 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 19-06-2026 NSL

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Thittagudi Police Station, Thittagudi, Cuddalore District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi Combined Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 19-06-2026