Sunil @ Sunil Kumar v. State, Rep. By The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Sunil @ Sunil Kumar

2. SARAN Petitioner(s) Vs State, rep. by The Sub Inspector of police, Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No. 202 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., pleased to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with in Crime No. 202 of 2025 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

A.J.Magendiraverman For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 232(1) & 351(3) of BNS (Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 195A and 506(ii) of IPC), in Crime No.202 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2025, the defacto complainant, Sathish, son of Gopal, lodged a complaint with the respondent police stating that on 12.10.2025, at 6.00 p.m., the petitioners had a verbal altercation with the defacto complainant's sister's husband, Shanmugam, due to a previous enmity. When the defacto complainant questioned this, the petitioners, along with others, abused and assaulted him. Based on the complaint, the FIR has been registered against the petitioners. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners are close relatives of the defacto complainant and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are

known to each other. He would further submit that the injured has been already discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6.

Considering the nature of allegations; the fact that the injured has been already discharged from the hospital; and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions: [a] 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 is made ready, before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] 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 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)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

28-10-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State, rep. by The Sub Inspector of police, Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No. 202 of 2025) 2.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 29198 of 28-10-2025