Moorthy v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 75(2), 75(1)(i) of BNS, (354(A), 354(A)(1)(i) of IPC) and 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No. 89 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant is a lady constable; that on 16.05.2026, while the defacto complainant was returning home from police station, the petitioner, who was coming in a car gave lift to her; that while proceeding the car, the petitioner suddenly stopped the car and grabbed her neck, snatched her mobile phone and try to misbehave with her and when the defacto complainant shouted, the petitioner fled away from the place. Hence, the case.

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

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that this is 2nd anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner snatched the defacto complainant's cell phone and there is no serious injury. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 6

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, though the allegation against the petitioner that he had snatched the cell phone and misbehaved with the defacto complainant, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that they were in relationship for some time. Since because some misunderstanding between them, the present complaint came to be registered. Though the earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed on the ground that petitioner misbehaved with the defacto complainant, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defacto complainant is only a Data Entry Operator and this petitioner and defacto complainant were in relationship and acquainted to each other for some time. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this fact was not brought before this Court when the earlier application was considered. Furthermore, the occurrence took place on 16-5-2026, till then the respondent has not taken the petitioner into custody. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. Page4 of 6

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Hosur 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 conditions:

(a) If the petitioner 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 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 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 Page5 of 6 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 01-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-I, Hosur.

¶2The Inspector of Police Bagalur Police Station, Krishnagiri.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o16677oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o16677oofo2026 01-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Moorthy ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Bagalur Police Station, Krishnagiri. Crime No.89 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest in Crime No.89 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M.P.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side)