Britanraj v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Britanraj ..Petitioner Vs State rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police station, Ranipet district.

Cr.No.231 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.231/2026 on the file of the respondent pending investigation.

For Petitioner:

Mr.D K Nepolean For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.231 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are husband and wife. There was a matrimonial discord between them for more than 7 years. They are living separately. On the fateful day, a wordy quarrel broke out between them which was escalated into assault and thereby the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant with iron rod. 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 de facto 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 the de facto complainant sustained injuries and was admitted in hospital. She took treatment for 5 days and thereafter discharged from hospital. She further submitted that FIR was registered on 11.05.2026. Hence, 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, considering the totality of the circumstances, and the matrimonial discord between the de facto complainant and the petitioner and upon the fact that the injured got discharged from hospital, 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-I, Arakkonam, 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 three 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, Arakkonam

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police station, Ranipet district.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 19-06-2026