Varadharajan v. State Rep.By

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296 (b), 324(4) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.193 Page2 of 6 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are residing in same locality. On 07.06.2026, due to previous enmity, there was a wordy altercation arose between them and the it is alleged that the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy words, and threatened him with dire consequence. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated on account of a long-standing civil dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the present complaint has been lodged only due to the previous enmity existing between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The learned counsel would further submit that no one sustained any injury in the alleged occurrence and that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that there exists previous enmity between the petitioner and the de facto complainant arising out of a civil dispute. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on 07.06.2026, the Page3 of 6 petitioner criminally trespassed into the land belonging to the de facto complainant and intimidated him with dire consequences. The investigation is in progress.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made by either side learned Counsel and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6.From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and considering the fact that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 07.06.2026 and admittedly, no one sustained any injury in the occurrence. The dispute between the parties appears to have arisen out of a civil dispute, which is also not disputed by the prosecution. Considering the nature of the allegations, the admitted previous enmity between the parties, the lapse of time from the date of occurrence, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Virudhachalam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a Page4 of 6 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 fail 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 10.30 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 petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 01-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court NO.1, Virudhachalam.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Veppur Police station, Cuddalore district. Cr.No.193 of 2026.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o16682oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o16682oofo2026 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 Varadharajan S/o.Ponnusamy, No.440, West street, Pasar Post, Pasar, Cuddalore district. ..Petitioner/ Accused Vs State rep.by Inspector of Police, Veppur Police station, Cuddalore district. Cr.No.193 of 2026. ..Respondent/ Complainant 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 their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Cr.No.193 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner: Mr.R Parthiban For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)