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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Rajesh S/o.Kuppan, Arur, Sankarapuram, Varagur, Villupuram.

2. Pravin S/o.Kuppan, No. 195, New Colony, Arur, Sankarapuram, Varagur, Villupuram.

3. Pradeesh S/o.Kuppan, No. 195, New Street, Sankarapuram, Varagur, Villupuram.

4. Kuppan S/o.Karuppan, No. 195, New Colony, Arur, Sankarapuram, Varagur, Villupuram.

5. Rajini W/o.Kuppan, Arur, Sankarapuram, Varagur, Villupuram.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

Crime No.303 of 2026 ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the responent police concerned in (Crime No.303 of 2026) on the file of Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station, Kallakurichi District) on our appearance the concerned court and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

MR.S.Kalaikumar For Respondent(s):

MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.303 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, due to previous enmity between the petitioners the defacto complainant, a wordy quarrel broke out, which subsequently escalated into an assault, thereby causing injuries to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent 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. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.06.2026 and that the injured was discharged from the hospital on 18.06.2026. He further submitted that the petitioners have no bad antecedents against them. 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. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that there existed previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, which culminated in a wordy altercation, during which the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.06.2026, the injured was discharged from the hospital on 18.06.2026 and that the petitioners have no bad antecedents, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, 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, Sankarapuram, 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 daily at 10.30 am 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.

25-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 25-06-2026