Appunraj v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Appunraj Kumaranaicken Pettai, Eguvarpalayam, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.

2. Prasanna Kumar No.42B, Pudhupat, New Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Pathiredu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

Crime No.96 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.96 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Order The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 329, 296(b), 351(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.96 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours, owing to previous enmity a wordy quarrel arose between them, during the course of which the petitioners allegedly abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that owing to a previous enmity a wordy quarrel broke out and the

incident was happened and no one had sustained injury in the said incident. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

7. From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that due to a previous enmity among the neighbours a wordy quarrel broke out and the incident was happened and no one had sustained injury in the said incident. Taking into consideration of the totality of the case, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

8. 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 District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- each (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 fail 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 annexeds 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 am for a period of four weeks and there after 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.

16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Pathirvedu Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

AH 16-06-2026