Sudhakar v. The State, Rep By,

O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 189(2), 191(2), 353(1)(b), 351(2), 132 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.51 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to restrictions imposed on the number of devotees permitted to enter Parvathamalai Temple at Tiruvannamalai, several devotees were not allowed to enter the temple on

02.03.2026, as the quota had already been reached. Aggrieved by the same, the devotees gathered and protested, during which the petitioner allegedly participated in the protest. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that since the quota of 1000 devotees had already been completed, the petitioner and other devotees were not permitted to enter the temple. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner only protested against the arbitrary action and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there was no damage caused to any public property. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) it is seen that there was a ceiling to the number of devotees to Shri Malliga Arjunar Swamy Pragana Ambigai Thayar, Paruvathamalai temple. The learned Government Advocate submitted that since the quota of 1000 devotees has completed, they have not permitted the petitioner and other persons. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has committed the said offence. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a political party and that they have protested against the arbitrary action of the Collector. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) there are no damages to public property and what the petitioner did was only a protest. In such a view of the position, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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:

(a) If the petitioner 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;

(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;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the Concerned Judicial Magistrate daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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];

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

09.03.2026 DRL To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. C.KUMARAPPAN.J. DRL Crl.OP.No.6011 of 2026

09.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.Sudhakar ... Petitioner Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No. 51 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.51 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvam for Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)