Krishnakumar v. State Rep By, Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) BNS, r/w under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, on the file of the respondent Police, and therefore seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the land dispute between the de-facto complainant and the petitioners led to an attack using hands and legs. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the injured victim has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the fact that, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vriddhachalam, and on further conditions that: [a] 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; [b] the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] 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]; [d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

15.09.2025 nvi To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vriddhachalam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

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

15.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN 1.Krishnakumar 2.Sowtharajan ... Petitioner/A1&A2 Vs. The State Rep. by: The Inspector of Police, Mangalampettai Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.155 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Crime No.155 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Meganathan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ********