Jayaprakash @ Jp v. State By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Jayaprakash @ JP

2. Sankar

3. Sadaiyappan

4. Kasappu Senthil @ Senthilkumar

5. Dinesh @ Dineshkumar

6. Vachira Kasi @ Kasiviswanadhan

7. Suppan @ Subramani

8. Singamani @ Deivarasan 9 Gowtham @ Gowthaman

10. Muthu ... Petitioners Vs.

State By, The Inspector of Police, Attur Town Police Station, Salem District.

Crime No.438 of 2025 ... Respondent 1/9

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.438 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.K.Balu For Respondent :

M/s.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji

O R D E R

The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.438 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioners is that, due to intra-party 2/9

enmity, while the sitting member of the assembly had visited the condolence meeting on 04.11.2025, at about 12.15 hrs, 25 persons gathered together and attacked the persons who have accompanied the sitting MLA and also involved in damaging the vehicles and value of the damage is to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that, these petitioners have objected the visit of sitting MLA and the persons who have accompanied the MLA have started attacking the petitioners and they also break the vehicle and in the alleged occurrence, many have been injured and they have also lodged a counter complaint against the defacto complainant, however, no action has been taken. He further submitted that, injured in this case has been discharged from the Government Hospital and again have voluntarily admitted for the 3/9

purpose of denying the rights of the petitioners to claim bail. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that there are photographs to show that these petitioners had blocked the Sitting MLA and also attacked the persons who have accompanied him, due to which, many were injured. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. He further submitted that, 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd & 7 th petitioners have some previous cases and other petitioners are concerned, there are no previous cases. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also 4/9

perused the materials available on records including the AR copies and the photographs showing the petitioners attacking the victims. st, 2 nd, 3 rd & 7 th petitioners, this

7. Considering the bad antecedents of 1 Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners (1, 2, 3 & 7) . In so far as the other petitioners( 4, 5, 6, 8 to 10) are concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners have no previous cases and, though it is submitted that the injured have not discharged from hospital, taking note of the fact that the occurrence was taken place on 04.11.2025, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners ( 4, 5, 6, 8 to 10) alone.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners (4, 5, 6, 8 to 10) are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the credit of Crime No.438 of 2025 with a period of two weeks and on such deposit, the 4th 5th, 6th, 8th to 5/9

10th petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur on condition that each of the 4th 5th, 6th, 8th to 10th petitioners 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 learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

[a] if the 4th 5th, 6th, 8th to 10th petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

6/9

[c] the 4 th, 5th, 6th, 8th to 10th petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the 4th 5th, 6th, 8th & 10th petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the 4 th, 5th, 6th, 8th to 10th 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)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 24.11.2025 sma 7/9

To 1.Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Attur Town Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma 8/9

24.11.2025 9/9