K.Jeevanantham v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶1K.Jeevanantham

¶2M.Kalidas ... Petitioners/Accused in Crl.OP(MD) No.10353 of 2026

¶1Murugesan ... Petitioner/Accused in Crl.OP(MD) No.10364 of 2026 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No. 165 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant in both cases For Petitioners : M/s.Vikraman.S (Crl.OP(MD) No.10353 of 2026) M/s.Balamuruganantham.R (Crl.OP(MD) No.10364 of 2026) For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITIONS FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS COMMON PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 165 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2026 (Crl.OP(MD) No.10353 of 2026) &

10.05.2026 (Crl.OP(MD) No.10364 of 2026) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 109(1), 118(1), 311, 351(3) of BNS, Section 4 of TNPWH Act @ 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 109(1), 118(1), 311, 317(2), 351(3) of BNS and 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No. 165 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the parties with regard to temple festival, for which, the accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, abused the defacto complainant and others with filthy language, assaulted them by using stones and sickle with an intention to cause murder and committed dacoity of 31 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on account of previous enmity with regard to temple festival, the petitioners were roped into this case and the petitioners are innocent and not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In this case, injured were already discharged from the hospital. The petitioners have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody from the date of arrest. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered against the accused persons. The petitioners have previous cases at their credit. He would further submit that though injured were discharged from the hospital. considering the stage of investigation and the offences are grave in nature, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and the fact that there is a previous dispute between the parties with regard to temple festival and the injured were discharged from the hospital and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners as well as though the petitioners have previous cases, they were granted bail in the previous cases registered against them, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which they are suspected; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [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 BNS.

(P D B J)

08.06.2026 PNM TO

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai.

¶2Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai District.

¶3The Superintendent, District Prison, Ramanathapuram.

¶4The Inspector of Police,, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶5The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. P. DHANABAL,J PNM COMMON ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10353 & 10364 of 2026 Date : 08/06/2026