R.Praveen v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Uchipuli

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6601 of 2026 R.Praveen ... Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.74 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Antony santhosh

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 74 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.74 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 21.03.2026 at about 03.00 p.m., to due previous dispute, the petitioner along with other accused persons abused the defacto complainant, attacked with aruval and iron rod and threatened him with dire consequences. In which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is previous dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's driver. The co-accused was already arrested and released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the offences are grave in nature. Due to previous enmity, there was wordy quarrel arose between the petitioner parties and the defacto complainant's driver. At that time, the defacto complainant went to that place to settle the issue. But, the petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with aruval. In the result of which, he sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. After treatment the injured was discharged from the hospital. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner is having two previous cases, but not similar in nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the fact that though the petitioner has 2 previous case, they are not similar in nature and he has got bail in all those cases and also considering the injured in this case has been discharged from the hospital, co-accused was already arrested and released on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the Inspector of Police, Mandapam Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J)

07.04.2026 TM

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.74 of 2026)

3.The Inspector of Police, Mandapam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6601 of 2026 Date : 07.04.2026