Vijayakumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vijayakumar ...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station Trichy. (Crime No. 172 of 2026)

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Abdul Rasiq

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Pandiyaraj PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 172 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 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 @ 191(2), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 324(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the TNPWH Act, in Crime No. 172 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2026, the petitioner along with the other accused trespassed into the premises, wherein the defacto complainant was working as Manager of a hotel, used abusive language, threatened the employees and damaged the building, arch, advertisement board, worth about Rs.15,00,000/-. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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. He would further submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property and there is a lease agreement entered between the parties. He would further submit that co-accused was granted bail. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property, in which the defacto complainant entered into a lease agreement for parking vehicle and also invested huge amount of money, but the petitioner has damaged the properties. Hence, he stongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned Counsel for State of TN (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 191(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 @ 191(2), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 324(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the TNPWH Act, in Crime No. 172 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner has 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 petitioner.

¶6Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that there is a tenancy dispute between the parties, and though the alleged occurrence took place on 24.04.2026, FIR has been registered only on 29.04.2026 and co-accused was granted bail and also the petitioner has no previous 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Trichy, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of thirty days, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [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)

17.06.2026 apd

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-V, Trichy.

2.The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station Trichy.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e11421eofe2026 oooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o11421oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o17.06.2026 (2/2)