Raja v. State Rep. by

O R D E R The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 304(2), 324(2) of BNS Act, in Crime No.30 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and others, in furtherance of their common intention, unlawfully assembled and damaged the house and compound wall of the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the 11th petitioner herein snatched 5 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioners had damaged the residence and the compound wall of the defacto complainant and that the 11th petitioner had snatched five sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioners had demolished the residence of the defacto complainant which had been put up on private land. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the construction was made on a public pathway. Even assuming that the defacto complainant had encroached upon a public pathway, the petitoners cannot take the law into their own hands. It is for them to approach before the appropriate authority to resolve the issue.

¶7At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that five sovereigns of gold jewels were also snatched from the defacto complainant by A11. In such a view of the large scale involvement of the accused in this matter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 to 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with respect to petitioners 1 to 11. However, considering the gender of the petitioners 12 to 22 and also considering the age of some of the said petitioners, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner 12 to 22 on anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioners 12 to 22 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District, on condition that the petitioners 12 to 22 shall execute a separate 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 conditions:

(a) If the petitioners 12 to 22 fails to surrender before the concerned learned 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 12 to 22 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners 12 to 22 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

09.03.2026 DRL To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Padalam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. C.KUMARAPPAN.J. DRL Crl.OP.No.5845 of 2026

09.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Raja 2.Adhi @ Adhikesavan 3.Sekar 4.Suresh 5.Elumalai 6.Kuppas @ Kuppan 7.Moorthy 8.Siva 9.Satheesh @ Satheeshkumar 10.Allimuthu 11.Yakkesh @ Yakkesh Kumar 12.Kalyani 13.Sivaranjani 14.Bama @ Sathiya Bama 15.Velankanni 16.Vennila 17.Vani 18.Ammu 19.Udhaya @ Udhayakumar 20.Rajam 21.Amsa 22.Mahi @ Maheswari ... Petitioners Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Padalam Police Station, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No. 30 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.30 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Murugavel For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)