Pukazhendhi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.03.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD.No.4721 of 2026

1.Pukazhendhi

2.Muthuraj ... Petitioners/Accused No.34&38 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.40 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.M.Ganeshkamu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.40 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 324(2), 118(1), 109 and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.40 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2According to the prosecution, there is a dispute between the two communities during the temple festival. In this regard, on 19.02.2026 at 08.30.p.m near Muthalamman Temple, the petitioners are said to have assaulted the other community people and caused damage to the divine idol. Due to which, two persons have sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the respondent police registered a case for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are arrayed as A34 & A38 and no specific overt act against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in this case since the petitioners did not present in the scene of occurrence. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Additional Public prosecutor on instructions, submitted that this is a rival dispute between the two communities. There is a tense situation still maintained in that locality. He also strongly objected to allow this petition on the ground that the assault made by the members of the unlawful assembly and the damage caused to the divine idol and even assuming that there is no specific overt act in the FIR, the Investigating Officer found out specific overt act during the course of the investigation. In the said circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

¶5This Court considered the rival submissions.

¶6From the FIR and the materials & submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is clear that there is a dispute between the people of two communities during the temple festival and there was a assault made by the members of unlawful assembly and there is tense situation and injured sustained grievous injury. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands dismissed.

03.03.2026 dss TO

1.The Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J., dss ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4721 of 2026 Date : 03/03/2026