Appichigounder @ Chandrasekar v. State Rep. By, the Inspector of Police,

O R D E R A landlord-tenant dispute has led to an altercation between two groups, resulting in the registration of a case and a counter case.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police states that the petitioners herein are accused in F.I.R.No.240 of 2025 for offence under Section 191 (2), 296 (b), 333, 115 (2) and 324 (4) of BNS, 2023. Apart from injury of two persons, there is also an allegation of damaging household articles worth about Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

5.Considering the nature of offence, the fact that injured has been discharged from hospital and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty Thousand Only] each to the credit of Crime No.240 of 2025 before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on or before 28.08.2025, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam, Namakkal District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate on or before 28.08.2025, 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

18.08.2025 ep To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Komarapalayam, Namakkal.

2.The Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,

J. ep

18.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.08.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN 1.Appichigounder @ Chandrasekar 2.Mekala 3.Vasanthi 4.Shanthi 5.Srinivasan ... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Namakkal District. Crime No.240 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.240 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.Vijayaragavan Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)