Esakkiraj v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7112 of 2026 Esakkiraj ... Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.133 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthick Raja

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 133 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 109, 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS, r/w. Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.133 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. She lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacker her by threatening him with dire consequences and also gave life threat to her. 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 matrimonial dispute between the parties. Hence, the present false complaint has been lodged by her. 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. There is matrimonial dispute between the parties. In which the petitioner severely attacked his wife. Hence, he vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner. He has no previous case. Injured has been discharged from the hospital.

¶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, that there was matrimonial dispute between the parties, injured has been discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has no previous case and considering the relationship between the parties and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, 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, Sathankulam, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police 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)

10.04.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.133 of 2026)

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

P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7112 of 2026 Date : 10.04.2026