Saravanan v. The State Represented by Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime Page1 of 6 No. 241 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, due to a verbal quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted him, and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant urinated near the petitioners' fruit trolley shop. When the petitioners questioned him as to why he was doing so, the defacto complainant became aggressive and assaulted the petitioners. Thereafter, the defacto complainant, along with eight other persons, criminally trespassed into the petitioners' house and attacked them. In respect of the said incident, the petitioners lodged a complaint before the respondent police, which was registered as Crime No.240 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioners are 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 Page2 of 6 respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners submitted that the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, and assaulted him, and threatened him with dire consequences. The investigation is still in progress, and the role of each of the petitioners has to be ascertained. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required, and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

5.Considering the submissions made on either side, the fact that a counter-case has been registered in Crime No.240 of 2026 on the complaint of the petitioners, and that the occurrence appears to have arisen out of a sudden quarrel, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners have also undertaken to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain following 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 Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioners 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 Page3 of 6 Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioners 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of fifteen [15] days 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 21-07-2026 JRS Page4 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai,

¶2The Inspector of Police Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. Ref Cr.No. 241/2026

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o19271oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o19271oofo2026 21-07-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Saravanan S/o. Rajendran, No.63, Samadhiyan Kula Street, Thiruvethipuram, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai 604 407 2.Kumaresan No.63, Samadhiyan Kula Street, Thiruvethipuram, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai 604 407 ..Petitioners Vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District. Ref Cr.No. 241/2026 ..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 arrest by the Respondent Police in connection with Crime No.241 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M. Raja For Respondent(s): Mrs. R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (crl.side)