Raji v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Raji ..Petitioner Vs State rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, D-4 Steel Plant Police Station, Salem city.

Cr.No.91 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest at the hands of the respondent pending investigation in Cr.No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.Senthilvel For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS 2023 in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2026, at about 17.00 hrs, when the de facto complainant went to fetch water from the public tap located in the street nearby his house, the petitioner abused the de facto complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted him on his left arm using a gate valve opening iron rod due to which, the de facto complainant sustained injury. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. 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 there was wordy quarrel between the de facto complainant in respect of supply of water. The occurrence took place on 26.05.2026 and FIR was registered on the next day. He further submitted that injured has been discharged from hospital. However, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and

perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, and upon the fact that the injured got discharged from hospital, this Court is of the firm view that at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, 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, 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 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.

19-06-2026 SHL To:

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, D-4 Steel Plant Police Station, Salem City.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 19-06-2026