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

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 132, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No. 127 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with A1 picked up quarrel with defacto complainant, who is working as Sales Manager in Government TASMAC shop and abused him in a filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. 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, upon instructions, submitted that there are totally two accused in this case and co-accused/A1 has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. Page3 of 6

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it is seen that defacto complainant is the salesman of the TASMAC shop and the petitioner/A2 along with A1 went to the TASMAC shop, while consuming liquor, there was an altercation between them. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), there was no serious injury. Hence, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, and upon the fact that the co-accused/A1 has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, 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.

¶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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur 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 Page4 of 6 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 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. 30-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr Page5 of 6 To:

¶1The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur

¶2The Inspector of Police Cheyyur Police Station,

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o16599oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o16599oofo2026 30-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Saran ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Cheyyur Police Station, Crime No.127 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 his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.127 of 2026 and pass such further orders. For Petitioner(s): M/S. G.Balachandar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side)