Rengasamy Vs The State rep.by

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner heerin on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the Cr.No.285 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R Rajasekar For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for

¶17

the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 324(4) and

¶18

Page1 of 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRL OP No. 16211 of 2026

¶21

351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.88 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioners is that due to family dispute, a wordy quarrel broke out, which subsequently escalated into an assault, thereby causing simple injuries to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant is the father of the 1^st petitioner and the second petitioner is a wife of first petitioner and due to family dispute, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶25

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶26

6. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, the fact that

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

CRL OP No. 16211 of 2026

¶30

the dispute is between the family members, and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the firm view that no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶31

Accordingly, 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, Kunnam, 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:

¶32

(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;

¶33

(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;

¶34

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶35

__________ Page3 of 5

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

CRL OP No. 16211 of 2026

¶38

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate 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];.

¶39

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

30-06-2026

DRL

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kunnam.

¶44

2.The Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Police Station, Perambalur District.