- Court
- High Court of Madras
- Decided
- 10 April 2026
- Bench
- P.Dhanabal
- Case no.
- CRL OP(MD) 7220/2026
Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1.Ramamoorthy
2.Loganathan
3.Balamurugan
4.Patturajan ...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station Madurai (Crime No. 238 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.Kabilan
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. 238 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 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No. 238 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on
26.12.2025, the petitioners went to the house of the defacto complainant and abused the defacto complainant and his family members and hurt the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and 4 of TNPHW Act. He further submits that the injured was treated as outpatient and the petitioners have no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
¶6Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the parties and the injured was treated as outpatient and also considering the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are 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-II, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 apd
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e7220eofe2026 oooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o7220oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o10.04.2026
Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.