K.Kannaiyan v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 30.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

1. K.Kannaiyan

2. K.Swaminathan

3. K.Sundari

4. K.Govindammal ... petitioners/ Accused Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Maduranthakam Police Station, Chengalpet District.

(Crime No.552/2025) ... Respondent / Complainant For petitioners : Mr.Magesh Kumar G For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners / Accused, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296[b], 115[2], 1/5

118[1], 351 [3] of BNS in connection with the Cr.No.552 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the of the prosecution is that the petitioners had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him and caused injury. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to property dispute, the defacto complainant had lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and they had not committed any such offence. Hence, seek anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] on instructions submitted that due to property dispute, the petitioners had assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injury and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that there is no previous case against petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2/5

6. Considering the nature of offence and the dispute between the parties and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is no previous case against the petitioners, 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurantakam, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks.

[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; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

3/5

[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.

30.12.2025 vrc 4/5

P.DHANABAL, J., vrc 06.

30.12.2025 5/5