Latchumana Perumal v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Latchumana Perumal 2.Punitha ... Petitioners Vs.
The Inspector of Police, V6, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai District - 600 091.
(Crime No.191 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent Police in Crime No.191 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, V6, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai District or on his appearance before the Court. 1/8
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Murali For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.191 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant jointly attacked each other due to a dispute which had arisen out of a disagreement regarding the purchase of groceries. The petitioners' brother-in-law runs a grocery shop and the defacto complainant had come to the said shop to purchase certain items and attempted to bargain the price. The petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours. When the petitioners and their brother-in-law refused to accept the bargained amount, 2/8
the defacto complainant became agitated and physically attacked the petitioners. Subsequently, both the defacto complainant and the petitioners lodged complaints with the respondent police against each other. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case.
3/8
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made on either side, 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 V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, 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 4/8
petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[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 Suretyship [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 every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for further interrogation; [d] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the respondent as and when required; [f] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police 5/8
custody beyond the first fifteen days, they shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560]; [i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
25.07.2025 dna 6/8
To:
1.The Inspector of Police, V6, Kolathur Police Station, Chennai District - 600 091.
(Crime No.191 of 2025) 2.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.
7/8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
dna 25.07.2025 8/8