Sarma @ Narayanasarma v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Courtallam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sarma @ Narayanasarma

...Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.107 of 2008)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner :Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja

Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest pending trial in S.C.No.05 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent pursuant to the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai in S.C.No.05 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 120(b) and 427 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives

Substance

Act,

1908, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

17.02.2007, in a death anniversary, a discussion was held among the accused persons to do something

against

Muslin

fundamentalist. Thereafter, they have agreed to blast boom at RSS office for the purpose of creating an aversion towards Muslim community, as planned booms were blasted and it caused damages worth about Rs. 2,500/-. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was already released on bail and since the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing, Non-Bailable Warrant

(NBW) was ordered to be issued. He would further 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 would further submit that the petitioner underwent grate trauma and lost his mental balance and hence, he could not appear before the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) fairly admits that already bail was granted to the petitioner and due to non-appearance, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions made on either side and considering the fact that already bail was granted to the petitioner and due to absence, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued and the same is pending, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court, where the NBW is pending and file an appropriate application for cancellation of NBW.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court, where the NBW is pending and file an appropriate application for cancellation of NBW within a period of fifteen

(15) days from the date of receipt of this order and to file an application for cancellation of Non-Bailable Warrant. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same on the same day in accordance with law, on merits.

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

(P D B J)

22.06.2026 vsg To

1.The Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai.

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

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

CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e11780eofe2026 eeP.eDHANABAL,eJ., eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e11780eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e22.06.2026