M.Rayees Ulfath v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN M.RayeesUlfath ... Petitioner /A2 Vs.
The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, J-7, Velacherry Police Station, Chennai District.
(Crime No.433 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.433 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police. For Petitioner :
Mr.Sakthi Vel For Respondent :
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ********
O R D E R
The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and 118(1) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.433 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/5
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and another person, alleging that the son of the de-facto complainant was subjected to cruelty. The complaint further states that the de-facto complainant and her husband had separated due to discord, and the son is presently with her husband. The petitioner is the sister-in-law of A1, who is the husband of the de-facto complainant. The allegation is that the petitioner caused injuries to the minor son. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the injury was not intentional but purely accidental. He further submitted that, subsequent to this incident, the minor boy has been placed in the custody of his mother. He also stated that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent police, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and reiterated the prosecution's case. He also produced a photograph showing the injury.
2/5
5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 and on further condition that:
[a] 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; 3/5
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required;
[c] 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];
[d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
15.09.2025 nvi To 1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet 2.The Inspector of Police, J-7, Velacherry Police Station, Chennai District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras. 4/5
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
nvi 15.09.2025 5/5