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

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections Page2 of 6 126, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 105 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners and along with other accused assaulted and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, a case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are 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 petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the son of the petitioners was murdered by the son of the de facto complainant on

12.04.2026, pursuant to which the son of the de facto complainant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It is further submitted that due to the said incident, a quarrel arose between the parties and the petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A4, abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted him. Hence, she opposed the grant of bail. Page3 of 6

¶5Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it is seen that the son of the de facto complainant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the murder of the petitioners' son. Subsequently, on 05.06.2026, a wordy quarrel had taken place between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, which is alleged to have escalated into an assault. It is further seen that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital on the same day. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the background of the dispute between both parties, and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Arcot, Ranipet District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), each 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. 08-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Arcot, Ranipet District.

2.The The Inspector of Police Kalavai Police Station, Ranipet. Crime No.105 of 2026

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17581oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o17581oofo2026 08-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Ramesh S/o. Kaali,No.101, Bajanai Kovil Street,Agaram Village Post,Kalavai Taluk,Ranipet District 2. Venkatesan S/o Duraikannu, NO.17, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Sennaleri Village, Kalavai Taluk, Ranipet. ..Petitioners/ Accused 1 and 4 Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Kalavai Police Station, Ranipet. Crime No.105 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.105 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Elumalai T For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)