Murugan v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Murugan

2. Revathy

3. Sudhakar

4. Ravi ..Petitioners Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Veppamkuppam Police station, Veppamkuppam, Vellore district.

Cr.No.88 of 2026.

..Respondent 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 Cr.No.88 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Veppankuppam police station, Veppankuppam, Vellore district. For Petitioners:

Mr.Vinodh Kumar For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.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 in Crime No. 88 of 2026 on the file

of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was an existing land dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, who are neighbours. When the petitioners called the surveyor in order to measure their land, there was a wordy quarrel arose between the de facto complainant and it is further alleged the petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and abused him with filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted this is a case of case and case in counter. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are 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 issue arose between the de facto complainant and the petitioners while measuring the boundary. He further submitted that injured person sustained spine injury and was admitted in hospital for four days and discharged on 10.04.2026. Hence,

she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, especially the issue escalated due to a boundary dispute and upon fact that the injured got discharged on 10.04.2026, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, 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 Judicial Magistrate-III, Vellore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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 fifteen 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-III, Vellore

2. The Inspector of Police, Veppambakkam Police station, Veppambakkam, Vellore district.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 19-06-2026