K G Ramanathan v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 221, 296(b), 77, 329, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Medicare Service Person and Page2 of 6 Medicare Service Institutiour Act, in Crime No.169 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that following a wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant, the petitioner entered the hospital, behaved in an inappropriate manner, and recorded videos on his mobile phone without the knowledge or permission of the doctors. It is further alleged that the petitioner recorded videos inside the injection room, including women receive injections, without their knowledge or consent. Hence the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a social worker; on the date of occurrence, the petitioner visited the hospital and noticed that a nurse was allegedly using a previously used syringe/injection. When the petitioner questioned the said act, a wordy altercation ensued between the petitioner and the hospital staff. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the present complaint has been falsely lodged as a consequence of the said incident. He further submitted that he is an innocent person and ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the Page3 of 6 respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submits that no previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. She further submits the petitioner intimidated the doctors and other members of the hospital staff, thereby attracting the present criminal case. However, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5This Court has considered the submissions made on either side. Though the prosecution alleges that the petitioner intimidated the doctors and other hospital staff, it is the contention of the petitioner that he had merely questioned certain activities that were taking place in the hospital and that the complaint is false. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, this Court notes that the alleged occurrence took place on

20.05.2026 and that no one sustained any injury in the incident. Considering the lapse of time from the date of occurrence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. this Court is inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Jayambondam, Ariyalur District on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Page4 of 6 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 am for a period of four weeks; and thereafter as and when required.

(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 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 02-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur district.

2.The Inspector of Police Udayarpalayam Police Station, Ariyalur. Crime No.169 of 2026

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o16887oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o16887oofo2026 02-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K G Ramanathan S/o. Gunapal,No 3/82C, Ponparappi Road, Kuvagam, Ariyalur Tamilnadu 621710 ..Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police S/o. Gunapal,No 3/82C, Ponparappi Road, Kuvagam, Ariyalur Tamilnadu 621710Udayarpalayam Police Station, Ariyalur. Crime No.169 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 anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.169 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Balamurugan. For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)