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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Haridass

2. Revathi

3. Muthukumar

4. Tharun ..Petitioners Vs State by, Inspector of Police, E-2, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

..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 the above Crime No.45 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police, E-2, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Tiruvallur. For Petitioners:

Mr.T.Perinbanathan For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of B.N.S. for which the corresponding IPC Provisions are U/s.147, 148, 341, 294, 323, 324, 506 (II) of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.45 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant attempted to pacify the dispute existing between the first petitioner's family and Vellaippan's family by conducting a peace meeting before the village elders on 07.06.2026, a wordy quarrel arose. Thereafter, at about 06.30 p.m. near Pazhaverkadu Beach, the petitioners along with others allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant's brother Anand, abused him in filthy language, attacked him with a wooden log. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that this is a case and counter case. It is further submitted that the occurrence arose during the peace meeting conducted in connection with the village dispute and both groups sustained injuries. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that both sides sustained injuries in the occurrence. However, it is fairly submitted that the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital. 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 present case appears to be a case and counter case arising out of a village dispute. The materials placed before this Court indicate that both groups sustained injuries during the occurrence. Taking into consideration the fact that the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital and considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that 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 No. II, Ponneri, 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.

18-06-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, E-2, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.II. Ponneri.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 18-06-2026