Sasidharan v. State Rep by Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296 (b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.74 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the second accused are the relatives. Due to previous enmity regarding selling of joint purchased land, but the market value of the land is low, therefor the defcto complainant had demanded the accused to repay his share, an altercation arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, during which, this petitioners alleged to have abused him with filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant thereby causing injuries. 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. He would further submit that the petitioner is 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 prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed Page3 of 6 the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are relatives. The defacto complainant owns 1 acre and 40 cents of land. The petitioners intended to purchase the said property and had paid a certain amount as advance. It is alleged that, during the course of negotiations, the 1st petitioner used filthy language against the defacto complainant and assaulted her with a wooden log.

4.1. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the petitioners had agreed to purchase the land from the defacto complainant for a particular consideration. However, subsequently, the petitioners reduced the agreed price, and when the defacto complainant expressed her unwillingness to sell the property, a wordy quarrel ensued. In furtherance of the same, the petitioners allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made by either side learned Counsel and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6.Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the date of occurrence, and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners Page4 of 6 have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are 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-V, Vellore, 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 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 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 Page5 of 6 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. 10-07-2026 JRS To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-V, Vellore.

2.The Inspector of Police Anaicut Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.74 of 2026

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o17931oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o17931oofo2026 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 1. Sasidharan S/o.Govindasamy, No.55/2A, Anna Nagar, Manjadhavallipalaiyam, Seduvalai, Vimjipuram, Vellore District - 632 104. 2. Vijayakumar S/o.Jagadeesan, No.164(2), Kollaimedu, Sathiyamangalam, Vellore District - 632 114. ..Petitioners Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police Anaicut Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.74 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) RAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, toenlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.74 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioners: M/s.K.Prasath For Respondent: MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) Page2 of 6