Premnath v. State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 239 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The prosecution case is that on 12.07.2026 at about 5.15 p.m., when Page1 of 6 the defacto complainant's son-in-law went to Balaji Chicken Shop to purchase eggs, the petitioner and A1 questioned him regarding his love marriage with the defacto complainant's daughter. On receiving information, the defacto complainant and his wife came to the spot, where the petitioner and A1 allegedly abused and assaulted the defacto complainant. When the son-in-law intervened, the petitioner allegedly twisted his hand and thereafter caused a scratch injury on the forehead of the defacto complainant with a knife and threatened him. The injured was taken to Government Hospital, Hosur, where his statement was recorded, and a case was registered against the petitioner and A1. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to family animosity arising out of the love marriage of the defacto complainant's daughter with the petitioner's relative. The alleged injury is only a simple scratch injury, and no grievous injury was caused. The petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he seeks the relief 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 and submitted that the petitioner, Page2 of 6 along with A1, assaulted the defacto complainant and his son-in-law, and the petitioner used a knife to cause injury and criminally intimidate the defacto complainant. The investigation is at a nascent stage, and custodial interrogation may be required. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶5Considering the submissions made on either side, the nature of the allegations, the fact that the injury sustained by the defacto complainant is only a simple scratch injury, and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, 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.

¶6Accordingly, 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 No.II, Hosur, on condition that the 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; Page3 of 6

(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., 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 petitioner 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 No.II, Hosur.

¶2The Inspector of Police Mathigir Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.239/2026

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o19268oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o19268oofo2026 21-07-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Premnath S/o. Marappa, Door No.1/16, Achettipalli Village,Hosur Taluk,Krishnagiri District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Mathigir Police Station, Krishnagiri District. Crime No.239/2026 ..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 his arrest in Crime No. 239/2026 pending on the file of the respondent . For Petitioner(s): Mr. E. Kannadasan For Respondent(s): Mrs. R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (crl.side)