Santhoshkumar v. The State By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 326(f) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No. 220 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that there exists an active dispute in the village regarding the administration and consecration of the local Mariamman Temple. In connection with the said dispute, it is alleged that the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and assaulted him. Hence, the present complaint has been registered. Page3 of 6

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an ongoing dispute in the village concerning the administration and consecration of the local Mariamman Temple. On 26.06.2026, when the petitioners' group was peacefully proceeding through the village, they were allegedly wrongfully restrained, abused, and physically assaulted by the defacto complainant's group. The present case is only a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the 7th petitioner in respect of the very same occurrence against the defacto complainant and others. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners submitted that no one had sustained any injury in the occurrence. He further submitted that it is a case and counter case arising out of the same incident and that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents. Page4 of 6

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and that the entire occurrence took place during a temple festival. It is also a case and counter case arising out of the same occurrence. Considering the fact that no one sustained any injury and that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain following conditions.

¶6Accordingly, 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 No.II, Jayamkondam, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the Page5 of 6 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of fifteen [15] days 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];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 20-07-2026 JRS Page6 of 6

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondam.

2.The Inspector of Police Udayarpalayam Police Station, Crime No.220 of 2026.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High court of Madras. 20-07-2026

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Santhoshkumar S/o Deventhiran 2. Tholkappiyan S/o. Deventhiran, 3. Ravikumar S/o. Paramasivam, 4. Vigneswaran @ Vignesh S/o. Chinnadurai, 5. Ezhilan @ Ezhilarasan S/o. Rathinasamy, 6. Annadhurai @ Annadurai S/o. Venkatesan, 7. Parthiban S/o. Senthamilan, 8. Tholkappiyan S/o. Ramachandiran, 9. Raja @ Kalaignar @ Rajasekar S/o. Ramachandiran, all are residing at Parukkal Vilage, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Page2 of 6 ..Petitioners Vs The State by, The Inspector of Police Udayarpalayam Police Station, Crime No.220 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the Respondent Police in Cr.No.220 of 2026 on the file of Inspector of Police,Udayarpalayam Police Station,Ariyalur District on their appearance before this jurisdictional court . For Petitioners: M/S. ELAVARASAN M R For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)