Maathu@ Madhu v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act in connection with the Cr. No.20 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is due to prior enmity, the Page2 of 5 petitioner trespassed into the agricultural land belongs to the defacto complainant and threatened him by showing an unlicensed firearm. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent person, and he has been falsely implicated by the respondent police. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that unlicensed country gun (SBML) was recovered from the accused, no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the nature of allegations, no previous case is pending against the petitioner and country gun already recovered, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the Page3 of 5 event of arrest or on is appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Attur 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [c] he petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d] 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]. [e] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Page4 of 5 Section 269 B.N.S.2023. 19-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order JAI To

1.The Inspector of Police, Karumandurai Police Station Salem District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Attur.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o4170oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. JAI CRLoOPoNo.o4170oofo2026 19-02-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Maathu@ Madhu ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karumandurai Police Station Salem District (Cr.No.20 / 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 20 of 2026 on the file of Karumandurai Police Station, Salem . For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Ganesan For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)