Alexander v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Alexander
2. Elizhabeth Rani Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Kanthikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Cr.No.396 of 2025.
Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event on their arrest by the respondent police in Cr.No.396 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
M/s.Pradeep For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) of BNSS Act, 2023 in connection with the Cr. No.396 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2025, the petitioners went to the defacto complainant' house, abused the defacto complainant in a filthy language, assaulted her with hands and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent persons, and they have been falsely implicated by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution and hence he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that on 19.11.2025, the petitioners went to the defacto complainant' house, abused the defacto complainant in a filthy language, assaulted her with hands and threatened with dire consequences. He further submitted that petitioners has no previous case, pending against them. However, he strongly objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the representation made by both side counsel, nature of offence, and that no previous cases are pending against petitioners, and also
considering all other factors, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.
7. 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 ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri District, on condition that the each of 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 of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[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 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)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
16-12-2025 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kanthikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
gbi CRL OP No. 34377 of 16-12-2025