S.Sanmugaraj v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 3, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3) & 318(4) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 in connection with the Cr.No.270 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that it is a case of property dispute between the family members owing to which, the de-facto complainant was thrown out from the home. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that offences are grave in nature, there is a property dispute and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature of offences that it is a civil dispute between the family members, no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent on every Saturday for a period of four weeks. [b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

30.12.2025 mk/mp Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

¶1Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. P.DHANABAL

, J

mk/mp

30.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.12.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL 1.S.Sanmugaraj S/o.Late Subramanian 2.Vanitha @ Vanithamani W/o.S.Sanmugaraj 3.Mohankumar @ Mohanraj S/o.Ramasamy ... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore. ...Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.270 of 2025. For Petitioners : Mr.Aswin Prasanna For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate [Crl.side]