Madras High CourtCRL OP/1391/2026granted

Ananth v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

2026-01-22Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira10 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 22.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA 1.Ananth 2.M.P.Natarajan 3.Arul 4.Gowshik ....

Petitioners Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiyagadurugam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

(Cr.No.467 of 2025) ....

Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, pending investigation in Cr.No.467 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of Police, Ethappur Police Station, Salem district. For Petitioners :

Mr.V.S.Gopu For Respondent :

Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.467 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 109(1) and 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail.

1/10

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were involved in an accident that occurred near Vadakathampatti Bridge. It is alleged that the petitioners abetted an attempt to run over one Jayaprakash. According to the de facto complainant, the accused person instigated the driver of the vehicle to hit Jayaprakash. Though he escaped the fatal impact, he sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

3. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioners and false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the alleged incident is a consequence of intra-party rivalry. The 3rd petitioner is a sitting MLA, and the de facto complainant's party acted as the aggressors. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

4. The case of the prosecution as put forth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that both the petitioners and the de facto complainant belong to the same political party. However, he further submitted that a major portion of the investigation is completed and the injured party has already been discharged from the hospital.

2/10

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Aathur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), with one surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required;

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

3/10

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]);

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

22.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rpl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Aathur 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiyagadurugam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/10

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J, rpl 22.01.2026 5/10

6/10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA 1.Ananth 2.M.P.Natarajan 3.Arul 4.Gowshik ....

Petitioners Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ethappur Police Station, Salem District.

(Cr.No.467 of 2025) ....

Mr.V.S.Gopu For Respondent :

Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Today, this matter is listed under the caption "For Being Mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7/10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the order dated 22.01.2026, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1391 of 2026, the name and address of the respondent police station were wrongly typed in the cause title and the address portion of the order. He further prayed for an extension of time to execute the personal bond and furnish sureties.

Accordingly, the description of the respondent police station in the cause title and address portion of the order dated 22.01.2026, which currently reads as 'The Inspector of Police, Thiyagadurugam Police Station, Kallakurichi District,' shall read as 'The Inspector of Police, Ethappur Police Station, Salem District.'

The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the order dated 22.01.2026 and issue a fresh order copy to the concerned parties forthwith.

12.02.2026 Index : Yes/No rpl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Aathur.

8/10

2.The Inspector of Police, Ethappur Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

9/10

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J, rpl 12.02.2026 10/10