Magi Alias Mahendiran v. State, Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 in Crime No.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2026, one Venkatesan, S/o. Arumugam, lodged a complaint before the respondent police alleging that on

07.06.2026 at about 11.30 a.m., all the petitioners, due to previous enmity, abused the defacto complainant in filthy and obscene language, picked up a quarrel, threatened and intimidated him and thereby caused annoyance and fear.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the complaint has been lodged only due to previous enmity between the parties. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the entire issue has emerged due to a money dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Initially, there was a verbal quarrel between the parties and subsequently the same escalated into an assault. However, it is submitted that the injured had taken treatment only as an outpatient and was discharged on the same day. Page3 of 6

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6This Court is of the view that from the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it appears that the occurrence had arisen out of a money dispute between the parties. Initially, there was a verbal quarrel and thereafter the incident is stated to have escalated into an assault. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the injured had taken treatment as an outpatient and was discharged on the same day, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners 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, Cheyyar, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond each 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 fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the Page4 of 6 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, everyday 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 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 19-06-2026 NSL

Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Sub Inspector of Police, Dusi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶3The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar. CRLoOPoNo.o15499oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o15499oofo2026 19-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Magi @ Mahendiran 2. Nandagopal 3. Lokesh @ Lokeshwaran 4. Perumal ..Petitioners Vs State, rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Dusi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. Crime No.149 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.149 of 2026 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioners: Mr.A.Tamilselvan For Respondent: Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)