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

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(B), 115(2), 121(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 293 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The prosecution case is that on 07.07.2026, when the defacto complainant was conducting routine vehicle inspection near Kannigapuram, K.K.Nagar, he intercepted a car suspected to be involved in illegal activities and made enquiries with the driver. It is alleged that the driver of the car, namely Manikandan, suddenly got down from the vehicle, assaulted the defacto complainant, and thereafter escaped from the place of occurrence. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 and A2 were already arrested, he was no way connected to the alleged offence, he just by standing at that time. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed 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 submitted that no previous caes as against the petitioner and the injured got discharged on the same day of occurrence. Page3 of 6

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶6From the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that this is a case of assaulting upon the public servant who is the Special Sub Inspector and according to the prosecution case this petitioner assaulted him while he was in the vehicle check up. However the learned petitioner's counsel pleaded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedence; the accused persons A1 and A2 were already arrested , he is only a by-stander. Though this contention was objected by the learned government advocate, she fairly submits that no criminal antecedent as against the petitioner and that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day of the occurrence. Considering such circumstances and upon considering the fact that the occurrence took place on 7.7.2026 and that the injured got discharged and that there is no criminal antecedence against this petitioner, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 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 XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that the Page4 of 6 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 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., until further orders.

(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. 21-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

1.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶2The Inspector of Police R7 KK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.293 of 2026

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o18334oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o18334oofo2026 21-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vijay No.112/16, 3rd street,Ottagam Palayam,Vadapalani, Chennai -26. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police R7 KK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.293 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, toenlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.293 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s): Mrs. R.S.indira, Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)