Sarala v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 35(1), 324(2), 74 of BNS, 2023 ( 147, 294(b), 323, 326, 97, 354, 426 of IPC) in Crime No. 49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant and petitioners are relatives. Due to previous enmity, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them. It is alleged the petitioners along with other accused abused the defacto complainant in a filthy language and also assaulted her. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by Page3 of 6 this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injury is simple in nature. She also submits that no previous case is pending against the petitioners. However, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶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, from the submissions made by learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the alleged occurrence arose on account of stagnation of sewage water which led to an altercation between the parties and no serious injury sustained by the defacto complainant. Considering the fact that injury is simple in nature and the occurrence took place on 05.06.2026, the issue erupted relating to stagnation of sewage water and some of the accused persons are being woman, this Court is of the firm view that at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. Page4 of 6

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their 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 No.1, Tindivanam on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 2 and 3 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; The petitioners 1, 4 and 5 shall report before the respondent Police 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 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 14-07-2026 NR To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tindivanam.

¶2Inspector of Police Vellimedupettai Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o18245oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o18245oofo2026 14-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Sarala D/o. Vasumurthi, No.98, Mudha Kovil Street, Thathapuram, Villuppuram District. 2. Vinoth S/o. Vijayan, No.98, Mudha Kovil Street, Thathapuram, Villuppuram District. 3. Selvam S/o. Sekar Munusamy No.98, Mudha Kovil Street, Thathapuram, Villuppuram District. 4. Rani D/o. Gopal No.98, Mudha Kovil Street, Thathapuram, Villuppuram District. 5. Kaviselvi W/o.Vinoth No.98, Mudha Kovil Street, Thathapuram, Villuppuram District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police Vellimedupettai Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No.49 of 2026. Page2 of 6 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.49 of 2026 on the file the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/S. Shimiyon Edwin M For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)