Aravind v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No. 629 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused developed the quarrel to the de-facto complainant and attacked him with a spanner and caused head injuries. Hence the case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was wordy quarrel between the petitioner & others and the de-facto complainant. Due to the impact, the petitioners have also sustained injuries and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation and he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is having one previous case similar in nature. He opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the fact that, injured discharged, and occurrence taken place due to quarrel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, 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 learned Judicial Magistrate NO.II, Alandur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen 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; [c]the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30am for a period of two 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

23.01.2026 MSM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur.

2.The Inspector Of Police T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station Kancheepuram District. Crime No. 629 of 2025.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR

, J.

MSM Crl.O.P.No. 1375 of 2026

23.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 1375 of 2026 Aravind ...Petitioner Versus The State rep. by The Inspector Of Police T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station Kancheepuram District. Crime No. 629 of 2025. Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Cr.No. 629 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthick For Respondent : Ms.J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----