Nanda Kumar v. State Rep. by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No1225 and 1898 of 2026 Nanda Kumar Dhinesh Thirunavukarasu … Petitioners (in Crl.OP.No.1225 of 2026) Jeevanandham

... Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No.1989 of 2026) Vs. State Rep., by The Inspector of Police, F-4, Kaverapettai Police Station, Tiruvallur. ... Respondent ( in both Crl.OPs) COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police pending investigation in Cr.No.17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Ms.M.Preethi for Mr.Mukesh Kanna (Crl.OP.No.1225 of 2026) Mr. S. Dheerendran (Crl.OP.No.1898 of 2026) For Respondent : Ms. J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (in both Crl.OPS)

COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS r/w 25(1)(A) of Arms Act, in Cr.No.17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners joining hands with other accused, abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with a knife and stones and caused injuries to him. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Criminal Original Petitions submitted that the majority of the allegations only against A1 in this case, who used the knife and attacked the defacto complainant. Though the defacto complainant is not discharged from the hospital, the petitioners have not attacked the defacto complainant and they are not having any previous case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that due to the attack made on the defacto complainant by knife, the injured had sustained head injuries, following which, he is still undergoing treatment.

Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He further submitted that the third petitioner viz., Thirunavukarasu in Crl.OP.No.1225 of 2026 is not an accused in this Cr.No.17 of 2025.

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

¶6Considering the fact that though the injured is still in hospital, the majority of the allegations and attacking the defacto complainant is only against A1, he was already arrested and enlarged on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions (except third petitioner viz., Thirunavukarasu in Crl.OP.No.1225 of 2026) .

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners in both the petitions 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, before the learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

¶8This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed, since the third petitioner viz., Thirunavukarasu in Crl.OP.No.1225 of 2026 is not an accused in this Cr.No.17 of 2025.

29.01.2026 Vv To

¶1The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi

¶2The Inspector of Police, F-4, Kaverapettai Police Station, Tiruvallur.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR

, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No1225 and 1898 of 2026

29.01.2026