Aslam @ Aslam Abdulrahim v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 30.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
1. Aslam @ Aslam Abdulrahim
2. A.Thoufic ... Petitioners Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District, Tamil Nadu.
(Crime No.501/2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.501 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Vigneswaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) *****
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent 1/5
police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) & 351(3) BNS, in connection with Cr.No.501 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is sonin-law of the first petitioner, having married the daughter of the first petitioner. Due to matrimonial dispute, the defacto complainant and his wife are living separately. On 19.12.2025, the petitioners came to the house of the defacto complainant and there was verbal altercation, due to which, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.501/2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2),118(1) & 351(3) BNS.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is family dispute between the petitioners' family and the defaco complainant, who is son-in-law of the first petitioner. Further there is case in counter in Cr.No.500 of 2025 pending against the defacto complainant. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there was family dispute between the parties and 2/5
no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Considering the nature of the offence and the relationship of the parties and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.
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.II, Tirupattur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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-police on 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 3/5
dissuade him 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;
[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 cgi To
1. The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District, Tamil Nadu.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupattur.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
4/5
P.DHANABAL, J., cgi/ksa-2 06.
30.12.2025 5/5