Santhosh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) and 303(2) of BNS Act, 2023, and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No.179 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offense under Section 4 of the TNPWH Act, was omitted from being mentioned in this petition, and hence, he prayed to this Court that it may be added and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has no objection to add the same.

¶3The allegation against the petitioners is that on 18.06.2026 at about 06.15 a.m, due to quarrel between the parties, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with sticks and their hands and caused injury. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that already due to quarrel, counter case has been registered in Crime No.181 of 2026 against the defacto complainant and the injured was discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, submitted that the petitioners are ranked as A1 to A3 and due to the quarrel, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries and the investigation is at preliminary stage. He would further submitted that the petitioners 1 & 2 have 1 previous case each and the third petitioner has no previous antecedent and the injured was discharged from the hospital and counter case has been registered in Crime No.181 of 2026 against the defacto complainant. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶6Heard both sides and perused the material available on records.

7.Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners, and also considering the facts that the injured was discharged from the hospital and counter case has also been registered in Crime No.181 of 2026 against the defacto complainant and though the prosecution stated the petitioners 1 & 2 have 1 previous case, that is not a similar kind of offence and the third petitioner has no bad antecedents, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

29.06.2026 dss K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

2.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12607 of 2026 Date : 29/06/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR 1. Santhosh Kumar 2. Karuppasamy 3. Danalakshmi ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No. 179 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 179 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police... For Petitioners : Ramasamy, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.I.Murugesan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)