Loorthu Mary v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Tenkasi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.13185 of 2026

1.Loorthu Mary

2.Pappa

3.Muthukutti

4.Samuthirakani

5.Mariammal

6.Tamil

7.Mahewari

8.Muthuraj

9.Singaraj

10.Ganesan

11.Marichamy

12.Periyamari

13.Ganapathi

14.Annalakshmi

15.Anitha

16.Chinnamari

17.Fathima

18.Raji @ Rajeswari

19.Kanagalakshmi

20.A.Vignesh

21.Pandi @ Pandeeswari

22.Sankarraj

23.Ponraj

24.Gurusamy

25.Kanikairaj

26.Mahendran

27.Vairamuthu

28.Mayandi

29.Devaraj

30.Petchiammal

31.Servaikani

32.Muthu @ Thakkali Muthu

33.Surya

34.Murugan

35.Marisamy ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Tiruvenkadam Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.184 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.184/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 191(2), 296(b), 118(1), 132 and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.184 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 11.06.2026, due to clash between the members of two villages, the petitioners and the other group attacked each other and when the police officials were deployed at the scene of occurrence, the petitioners pelted stones against the police officials, thereby, causing grievous injury. The petitioners also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. He would also submit that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned counsel for State (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that the offences committed by the accused are grave in nature and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners.

¶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 the fact that the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the Trial Court daily at 5.00 p.m., for a period of two weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. [d] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

03.07.2026 Lm TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

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

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

K.RAJASEKAR,J. Lm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13185 of 2026 Date : 03/07/2026