P. Pushpa v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25868 of 2025 P.Pushpa ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, P-4, Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondent (Cr.No.442 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest in Crime No.442 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 61(2)(a), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351 (3) of BNS Act in Cr.No.442 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has instigated the other accused to enquire about the defacto complainant regarding missing of jewels belongs to her grand daughter for the purpose of retrieving the same. Based on the same, the other accused went to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him with blade and caused severe injuries. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has not gone to the place of occurrence and she only requested the other accused to enquire about the missing of jewels and she was not directed the other accused to cause any injury to the defacto complainant. He further submitted that though previous cases were reported against the petitioner herein, she was not gone to the place of occurrence and hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and reported that this petitioner is also arrayed as an accused in this case and she has already 2/6

involved in 46 previous case, major among them was IPC offences. He further reported that injured was discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. On perusal of the FIR revealed that for the purpose of getting the missing jewels of the petitioner's grand daughter, the petitioner had sent the other accused to enquire about the same. While enquiry, the other accused caused injury to the defacto complainant.

7. Though 46 previous cases are shown as previous cases for objecting the anticipatory bail, considering the nature of offence and the role of the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner being a lady, I am 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 within a period of fifteen (15) days from 3/6

the date on which the order copy made, before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-08 on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., 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 4/6

actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

19.09.2025 Vv To

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-08

2. The Inspector of Police, P-4, Basin Bridge Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.25868 of 2025 19.09.2025 6/6

7/6