Chinnathambi v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Chinnathambi, S/o.Subramaniyan, D.No.5/109, Pallivasal Street, Keelavalavu, Madurai District.. ... Petitioner/Accused No.6 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep BY, The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District. (In Crime No.92 of 2024). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.U.M.Berdin Vinodh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-8AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.92 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.6, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 47, 148, 294(b), 326 and 307 of IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in Crime No.92 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that due to previous enmity, A1 quarreled with his paternal uncle sons and assaulted them, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, there arose dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant. In order to wreck vengeance, on 20.04.2024, at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner along with the other accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacked him with deadly weapons and also thrown country bombs against him. Thereafter, A1 tried to attack him with knife and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner is not having any bad antecedents. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the scene of occurrence along with the other accused. The case is of the year 2024. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent Police, submitted that there are totally 21 accused in this case and 14 accused have been arrested and some of them have been released on bail. The petitioner is not having any previous cases. He further submitted that, though the injured was discharged from the hospital, he lost two fingers in the occurrence. Since some of the accused are still absconding and the final report has not yet been filed, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6.Considering the facts of the case and most of the co-accused were arrested and released on bail and the petitioner is not having any previous cases and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the scene of occurrence along with the other accused and the occurrence had taken place on 20.04.2024, by this time, most of the investigation might have been completed, hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for 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.

(K R S J)

20.07.2026 vsg TO

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Keelavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooK.oRAJASEKAR,J., vsg ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.14821oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o20/07/2026