Vijay Krishnan v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Vijay Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thimmampettai Police Station, Thimmampettai, Tirupathur District.

Crime No.32 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Vinodh Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr.Elayaraja Mr.N.S.Suresh (for intervenor)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 296 (b), 115 (2), 118 (1) and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.32 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2.The case of the prosecution is that, due to wordy quarrel, the petitioner attacked the defacto-complainant using wooden log. Due to which he sustained injury and admitted to Government Hospital, Tirupathur. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. A1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15052 of 2025 on 16.05.2025. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that injured has been discharged from hospital. However, opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner is served in the Indian Army. The petitioner along with other accused had assaulted the defacto-complainant using wooden log. Due to which he sustained serious 2/6

injury and admitted to Government Hospital, Tirupathur. He had thirteen stitches for the injuries sustained and he had incurred huge expenses for his medical treatment. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner voluntarily submitted that the petitioner, in order to show his bonafide, is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.32 of 2025 without prejudice to his defence. The petitioner has no objection to withdraw the amount by the defacto-complainant.

7. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record. 8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission that the petitioner is willing to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/-to the credit of Crime No.32 of 2025 and since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 3/6

9.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- [Rupees Thirty Thousand Only] to the credit of Crime No.32 of 2025 before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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:

[a] if the petitioner fails 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent 4/6

police as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioner 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 petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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.

29.07.2025 ep 5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ep To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thimmampettai Police Station, Thimmampettai, Tirupathur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

29.07.2025 (2/2) 6/6