Arulraj v. The State Rep.By

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 132, 115(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 69 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant, who is serving as VAO, lodged a complaint stating that on 19.06.2026 at about 11.30am., while he was discharging his official duties in connection with a public grievance enquiry, the petitioner came to the Village Administrative Office, questioned the complainant regarding certain official acts, used abusive language, allegedly obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duties and criminally intimidated him. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he has complained about cutting of palm tree in a Government land. In this regard, there was a wordy quarrel between them which escalated into an altercation. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. He Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that none has seriously injured. He submits that one previous case (theft case) is pending against this petitioner. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Page3 of 6 petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, though the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that one theft case is pending against the petitioner, from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the said case is relating to trespass. Considering such factual position, this Court is of the firm 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 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi, 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: Page4 of 6

(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 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, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks 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 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. 10-07-2026 NR Page5 of 6 To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodumudi,

¶2Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Erode district.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o16634oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o16634oofo2026 10-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arulraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs The state rep.by Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Erode district. Cr.No.69 of 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 concerned inCrime No.69 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police and such terms and conditions as this Honble court. For Petitioner(s): Neelavathi For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)