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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.15423 of 2026 1.Kalesha 2.Mohammed Inzamam ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Chunabedu Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

Crime No.77 of 2026 ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vintoh Kumar A For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 17.05.2026 at about 4.00 p.m., when the de facto complainant, along with his family members, visited his ancestral property, the petitioners, owing to previous enmity, allegedly abused them in filthy language. It is further alleged that the first petitioner attacked the de facto complainant with a penknife, while the second petitioner assaulted him with a wooden log. The petitioners are also alleged to have criminally intimidated the de facto complainant and his family members with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have also lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant and the same was registered in Crime No.78 of 2026 and in order to counter that, the present complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto complainant and the accused are relatives and the occurrence took place on 17.05.2026 and that the defacto complainant was took treatment as an out patient.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, particularly the fact that the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 17.05.2026, that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are closely related, and that the present dispute appears to have arisen out of a property dispute resulting in case and counter-case, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions

6. 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, Cheyyur at Chengalpattu District on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 3/6

bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

6. 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, Cheyyur at Chengalpattu District on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner(s) 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;

4/6

(c) The petitioner(s) shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 15 days 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(s) in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner(s) 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(s) thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

18.06.2026 rkp To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur at Chengalpattu District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Chunabedu Police Station, Chengalpattu District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

rkp Crl.O.P.No.15423 of 2026 18.06.2026 6/6