K. Kannan v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

1. K.Kannan

2. K.Kathirvel

3. M.Boopal

4. P.Prakash ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur.

Crime No.666 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 666 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioners :

M/s.K.Meena For Respondent :

Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent 1/6

police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 324(4) of BNS in Crime No.666 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, due to which the petitioners assaulted the de-facto and threatened him dire consequences. Thereby the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised for a period of 3 days. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are an innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. She further submitted that the petitioners is are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, she prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that althogh injured has been discharged from hospital, if the accused persons are granted 2/6

anticipatory bail, there may be a threat to the life of the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and taking note of the nature of the allegations and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Palladam on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

3/6

[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;;

[f] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, they shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[g] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance 4/6

with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 04.07.2025 rap To

1. The Judicial Magistrate at Palladam

2. The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur.

Crime No.666 of 2025

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rap 04.07.2025 6/6