Chandrakumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Melur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶1Chandrakumar, S/o.Jayaraman, No.16,Bharathiyar Street, Thathaneri, Madurai District..

¶2Hecte Rajesh, S/o.Raja, No.21/1,Annai Theresa 2nd Street, Thathaneri, Madurai District.. ... Petitioners/A1 and A2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District, Crime No.342/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Keerthi Prasanna, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.B.Senthil Kumar PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-38AB.For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.342/2026 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.342 of 2026, in Crime No.342 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that they are ranked as A1 and A2 in this case. Previously, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners regarding the missing money and car. Enraged over the situation, the petitioners, while the defacto complainant was riding a two-wheeler, attacked the defacto complainant with their hands, legs and a stick, causing injuries. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the earlier case, the petitioners got anticipatory bail, for that reason, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. They are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the petitioners, after getting anticipatory bail in the earlier order, attacked the defacto complainant brutally with hands, legs, and sticks. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that in the earlier case, the petitioners herein had taken away the car and money worth about Rs.5,000,000/- from the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioners were able to get anticipatory bail and thereafter, they threatened the defacto complainant and brutally attacked him with a weapon. The investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

7.This Court also called for the Accident Register from the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) through the CD file. Though the concerned officer was present and the CD file was produced before this Court, it was submitted that the Accident Register was not available. This Court has also perused the First Information Report, which revealed that the petitioners had attacked the defacto complainant with their hands and legs and also with a stick. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that the injured had sustained only simple injuries, this Court is 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, Melur, on condition that the petitioners 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 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. [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners 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 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(K R S J)

28.07.2026 vsg TO

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Melur 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.15125oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o28/07/2026