Sai @ Aravind vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2573 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2573 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Sai @ Aravind vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police on 14 May, 2026

                                                                               CRL OP No. 12465 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                       DATED: 14-05-2026
                                                           CORAM
                                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                                  CRL OP No. 12465 of 2026

                 Sai @ Aravind
                 Attanthangal,
                 Redhills Chennai-52.
                                                                                      ..Petitioner(s)
                                                              Vs


                 The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police
                 Sholavaram Police Station,
                 Thiruvallur District.
                 (Crime No.160 of 2026)
                                                                                    ..Respondent(s)



                PRAYER:-The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                B.N.S.S, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in
                Crime No.160 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police
                Station Thiruvallur.


                                  For Petitioner(s):        Mr.M.Vetrivel

                                  For Respondent(s):        Mr.S.Balaji
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl.Side)



                                                           ORDER

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the

respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3),

__________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), BNS, 2023 in connection with the Cr.

No.160 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a

complaint with the respondent Police alleging that the petitioner tried to assault

the defacto complainant and abused with filthy language. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner had not indulged in any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant

and the respondent without inquiring the true fact, falsely implicated the

petitioner in the present case and hence the petitioner may be released on

anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

respondent Police would submit that the petitioner has 19 previous cases and in

all the cases the petitioner was granted bail and all those previous cases are not

similar in nature. Further he would submit that the injured has been discharged

from the hospital and the co-accused has been released on bail and hence, he

strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

__________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature

of offences, considering the fact that the previous cases of the petitioner are not

similar in nature and in all the cases the petitioner was granted bail and also the

fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the co-accused

has also been released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the

event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the

date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate-II,

Ponneri on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 petitioner shall report before the South Police Station, Vellore

daily, until further orders;

[b] the petitioner 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

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

__________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned

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].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under

Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

14-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

rst/nsa

Note:

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

2.All 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.

__________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To:-