Chandhiran v. The State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and Crl.M.P.No.24907 of 2025 Chandhiran ... Petitioner Vs.
State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.265 of 2025)
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.265 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/7
respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3) of BNS Act, alter into under Section 351(3), 49, 118(1) & 126(2) of BNS Act, in Crime No.265 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is A1 in this case, due to land dispute, on 18.11.2025 around 11.30 a.m., when the de facto complainant went to Mariamman Temple, the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the de facto complainant, along with other accused threw chilli powder on his face, tried to assault him and threatened him with dire consequences and hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent of the offences and he is no way connected in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are brothers and there was already property dispute between them. Further, he would submit that the co-accused in this case were arrested and released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai. Hence, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail. 2/7
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.265 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 351(3), 49, 118(1) and 126(2) of B.N.S. and the case is under investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner is having two previous cases against him. He added that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner is a history sheeter and involved in so many criminal cases and frequently committing the offence, and therefore strongly opposed opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offence, and also considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and in view of the fact that though there are 3/7
previous cases pending against the petitioner, in all cases bail was granted to him, and in this case also anticipatory bail was granted to the coaccused by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the District Munisf-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four (4) weeks and 4/7
thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[d] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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]; and 5/7
[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
9. Connected Crl.M.P.No.24907 of 2025 stands ordered. 30.12.2025 dna/kas Note:
1.Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.
2.All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
Copy to:
1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.265 of 2025) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 600 104.
6/7
P. DHANABA L, J.
dna/kas Crl.O.P.No.
35829 of 202 a nd Crl.M.P.No.24907 of 2025 30.12.2025 7/7