Mayakkannan v. The Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners, apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 108 r/w 56 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Money Entities (Prevention of Coercive Actions Act), 2025 in Crime No. 141 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant had obtained a loan to purchase his tractor from M/s Sriram Finance in the year 2022. Subsequently, the defacto complainant was unable to pay the loan amount in the year 2025 and payment for 6 months became due to above said finance company. On 27.03.2026 at about 8.00P.M., the accused persons, who are in charge of collecting non paid dues, went to the residence of the defacto complainant and harassed him in a filthy language, due to which the defacto complainant got vexed psychologically and attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and set himself on fire due to which he sustained injuries on his face, neck and hands. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 6

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital on

04.04.2026. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it is relevant to mention that the co-accused/A3 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.15718 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026. Hence, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, and upon the fact that the occurrence took place on 27.03.2026 and the injured has been discharged from the hospital on

04.04.2026, this Court is of the view that at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. Page4 of 6

¶7Accordingly, 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-II, Tirupattur District, 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:

(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;

(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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday 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 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]; Page5 of 6

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tirupattur District

¶2The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o16426oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NR CRLoOPoNo.o16426oofo2026 29-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Mayakkannan S/o. Lakshmanasamy, No.51, Chnna Echampadi, K.Echampadi, Dharmapuri- 635 202. 2. Siranjeevi S/o. Ramesh, Kuppanna Street, Pudupettai, Tirupattur Taluk, Tirupattur District ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District. Cr.No.141 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) 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 their arrest concerned in Cr.No.141 of 2026 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sivasekar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side) Page2 of 6