Kalaiyarasan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nerkuppai

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 118(1), 296(b) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 73 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2026, the petitioner and other accused unlawfully assembled in the public place and attacked the defacto complainant, causing injuries and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has one previous case and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No. 12765 of 2026

¶26

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 118(1), 296(b) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 73 of 2026. He confirmed that injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has one previous case. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that injured was discharged from the hospital and though the petitioner has one previous case, in that case the petitioner was granted bail and considering all other factors, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No. 12765 of 2026

¶32

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari, Sivagangai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶33

[b] the petitioner 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 the interrogation.

¶34

[c] the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶35

[d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of

¶36

similar nature.

¶37

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶38

[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

CRL OP(MD). No. 12765 of 2026

¶42

witness either during investigation or trial.

¶43

[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

¶44

learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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].

¶45

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶46

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

29.06.2026

apd

To