Arun v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296 (b), 133, 115 (2), 118(1) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 read with 92(a) of Disabled Act in Crime No.108 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons and the de facto-complainant are close relatives. Due to previous eniminty with regard to civil dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between both the families, which was escalated into assualt. This petittioner along with other accused persons attached the defacto complainant and her daughter, who is a physically challenged person. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further states that co accused were released on anticipatory bail by this Court on

17.06.2026 in Crl.OP.No.15257 of 2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the occurrence took place on 02.06.2026 and that the injured was discharged from the hospital on 13.06.2026. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the earlier anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. she invited the attention of this Court to the earlier dismissal order dated 17.06.2026. While perusing the same, this Court found that, considering the seriousness of the allegation and the duration of treatment Page3 of 6 undertaken by the defacto complainant from 02.06.2026 to 13.06.2026, the earlier application was dismissed on 17.06.2026.

¶5This Court considered the rival submissions. Though the earlier application was dismissed on 17.06.2026, so far the respondent has not taken any steps to take the petitioner into custody. In such view of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that when the respondent police themselves have not considered the custody of the petitioner as essential, at this length of time, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to the following 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-II, vridhachalam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand Page4 of 6 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 two 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 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. 16-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court -II, Vridhachalam.

¶2The Inspector of Police Mangalampet Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No.108 of 2026

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o18735oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o18735oofo2026 16-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arun S/o.Aandaperumal, No.238, South Street, Edaichchithur, Cuddalore District - 606 104. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police Mangalampet Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No.108 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.108 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)