Rajesh v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Rajesh

2. Saravanan

3. Umanath

4. Anbarasan ..Petitioners Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anaikaranchathiram Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

Crime No.173/2026.

..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 their arrest in Crime No.173/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners:

Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.173 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2026, when the defacto complainant, who is an auto driver, was proceeding to his house, about 20 persons allegedly waylaid him, abused him in filthy language and attacked him with hands and legs. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours and that the occurrence arose when the residents questioned the defacto complainant regarding his alleged rash driving in the locality. It is submitted that a wordy altercation ensued between the parties and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that though there are allegations against the petitioners, the injured was discharged from the hospital on 29.04.2026. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

6. This Court is of the view that the entire occurrence appears to have taken place in furtherance of a neighbourhood dispute relating to the driving of

the auto by the defacto complainant. Further, the occurrence took place on 23.04.2026 and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital on 29.04.2026. Considering the subsequent developments and taking into consideration the date of occurrence, this Court is of the view that at this length of time custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required, subject to certain conditions.

7. 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, Mayiladuthurai, on condition that the petitioners 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 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 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 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.

17-06-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Anaikaranchathiram Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 17-06-2026