Sivaji v. State Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Sivaji

2. Santharaj ..Petitioners Vs State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Ilatheri Police Station, Vellore District.

Crime No.67 of 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 connection with Crime No.67 of 2026 on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 126(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.67 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the proprietor of City Medicals, Ilatheri. The defacto complainant and her husband were employed under the first petitioner for several years. The complaint discloses that the dispute arose during a staff excursion conducted by the management on 20.05.2026. It is alleged that after the complainant and her husband abstained from attending work, the petitioners called them under the pretext of returning their TVS Star City two-wheeler and thereafter wrongfully confined them in a room, threatened them and abused them in filthy language.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there are two accused in this case. The first petitioner has been running City Medicals at Vellore and the husband of the defacto complainant was working as an employee under the petitioner. It is submitted that due to the absence of the petitioner, the employee had misappropriated a sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the daily sales collection of the medical shop and in this regard, the petitioner had already lodged a complaint on 23.05.2026. It is also submitted that the dispute is purely arising out of employer employee relationship and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would strongly oppose the anticipatory bail application. However, it

is submitted that no one had sustained any injury in the occurrence.

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 dispute appears to have arisen between the petitioners, who are running a medical shop and the defacto complainant and her husband, who were employed under them. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that no injury has been caused to anyone, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, 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 District Munsif - Cum Judicial Magistrate, K.V.Kuppam, 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.

19-06-2026 NSL

To

1. The The Sub Inspector of Police, Ilatheri Police Station, Vellore District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, K.V.Kuppam.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 19-06-2026