VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Ramesh v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

GRANTED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
9 July 2026
Bench
C.Kumarappanauthor
Case no.
CRL OP 17641/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow C.Kumarappan

Judgment

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 35191) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.175 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that there was a wordy quarrel Page2 of 6 arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, regarding collecting extra Rs. 10 for purchasing of alcohol at TASMAC shop, which escalated into assault and caused injuries to the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered.

¶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 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. 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 occurrence took place on 28.06.2026 and the present case is a case in counter. She further submitted that there are totally three accused persons in this case, they jointly attacked the defato complainant and the occurrence had taken place at the TASMAC shop, where the petitioners are working as salesmen. It is also submitted that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital.

¶5From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate( crl.side), it is seen that the occurrence took place on 28.06.2026 and the present case is a case in counter. The occurrence is said to have taken place Page3 of 6 at a TASMAC shop, where the petitioners were working as salesmen. It is also submitted that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital. Considering the above circumstances and the nature of allegations, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A1, subject to certain 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, Sriperumbudur, 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 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 one week and thereafter, Page4 of 6 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. 09-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

2.The Inspector of Police C-2, Sunguvarchatram Police Station, Kancheepuram - 631 502. Crime No.175 of 2026.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17641oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o17641oofo2026 09-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ramesh No. 4, Thiruvegamban Avenue, Kannakipuram, Vishny Kanchi, Orikkai, Kancheepuram, Tamil nadu 631 502. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police C-2, Sunguvarchatram Police Station, Kancheepuram - 631 502. Crime No.175 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime no.175 of 2026 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): M/S. S.S.Ajay Sriram For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.