Veeramuthu v. State By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P No.28096 of 2025 1.Veeramuthu 2.Valarmathi 3.Manikandan 4.Kaviyarasan ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Udayarpalayam Police Station Ariyalur District (Cr.No.256 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in Crime No.256 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Mr.Elavarasan.M.R For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Santhanamari 1/5

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS Act, in Crime No.256 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to a wordy quarrel between the parties, the petitioners have entered into the house of the de-facto complainant, abused and attacked the de-facto complainant with hands and thereby caused injuries to him. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that due to property dispute, the occurrence had taken place and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the de-facto complainant sustained grievous injuries on his eyes and and he is still taking treatment, Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that based on the occurrence, a case and a case in counter have been registered. He 2/5

further submitted that the petitioners have no bad antecedents. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by both counsel, and taking note of the fact that based on the occurrence, a case and a case in counter have been registered, and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and considering the nature of injuries and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

8. 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 made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days 3/5

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 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 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

15.10.2025 uma 4/5

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam 2.The Inspector of Police, Udayarpalayam Police Station Ariyalur District 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

5/5

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

uma Crl.O.P.No.28096 of 2025 15.10.2025 6/5