Rajadurai v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Sivagiri

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/04/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶1Rajadurai

¶2S. Rajasekar

¶3R. Ravi

¶4P. Rameshkumar

¶5R. Kannan

¶6K. Pandikani

¶7C. Ramesh

¶8P. Rajadurai

¶9T. Vanijayaraman

¶10V. Ragupathi

¶11Jayaraj

¶12T. Kalimuthu

¶13U. Alagesan

¶14Ramkumar

¶15M. Krishnan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.8,11,14,17,20, 26,31,33,34,52,60,65,67&69 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District. Crime No. 116 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 116 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Karansingh K, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act (Corresponding Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 & 506(2) of IPC), in Crime No.116 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2026 at about

07.15 p.m, during the Panguni Uthiram festival, when the members of the defacto complainant community were taking a Pongal pot procession near Nattar Kadai, close to Periyar, Vathalakundu Mariamman Temple, the petitioners and other accused are said to have attacked them with a stones, bricks and sticks and caused injuries and caused damage to 18 tube lights and serial lights that had been installed for the temple festival. 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. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured were discharged from the hospital and and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is a dispute between two communities with regard to conduct temple festival and the petitioners and other accused are said to have attacked the complainant's group and caused injuries. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, he fairly conceded that it is a case and case in counter and counter case has been registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.118 of 2026 and the injured were discharged from the hospital and the petitioners 1, 3 & 7 are having 1 previous case and others have no previous case.

¶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 petitioners, and there is a dispute between two communities with regard to conduct temple festival and the injured was discharged from the hospital and though some of the petitioners having previous case, those cases are not similar kind of offence and other petitioners have no previous case, 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, Sivagiri, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days 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)

16.04.2026 dss

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.7434oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooP.oDHANABAL,J ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooodss oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.7434oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o16/04/2026