Sundarrajan v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep Bthey Inspector of Police, Palamedu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.15450 of 2026 Sundarrajan ... Petitioner / Accused Rank Not Known

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.121 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.121 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gunesekarapandiyan

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.121 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2) and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of the land adjoining the cart track situated in Survey Nos. 9 and 10 of Muduvarpatti, Erambatti Village. It is alleged that, while the Tahsildar and other revenue officials were conducting an inspection and survey of the said cart track, the petitioner entered the survey field, abused the officials in filthy language, criminally intimidated them with dire consequences, and obstructed them from discharging their official duties by parking his vehicle across the pathway and blocking the official vehicle. Hence, the competent authority lodged a complaint, based on which the present case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revenue officials had entered the petitioner's property without issuing any prior notice. He further submitted that the petitioner merely objected to the officials entering his property and that, on account of such objection, a false complaint has been lodged against him. He therefore prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the revenue officials had conducted only a survey of the cart track situated in Survey Nos. 9 and 10 and that the petitioner, being the owner of the adjacent land, obstructed the survey proceedings, abused the officials, and prevented them from discharging their official duties. He further submitted that the petitioner has 5 previous criminal cases to his credit. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner has 5 previous criminal cases to his credit, and the apprehension that, if granted anticipatory bail, he may indulge in similar offences or interfere with the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

27.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.15450oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15450oofo2026 Dateoo:o27.07.2026