Madras High CourtCRL OP/5231/2026granted

Dhanasekar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By,

2026-03-10Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Dhanasekar

2. Sekar

3. Sabarinathan

4. Rajadurai

5. Balaji

6. Angalammal

7. Monicka

8. Udol @ Santhanam ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Pudhupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

Cr.No.45/2026.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.45 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Paramasivam Krishnamurthy For Respondent:

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 329(3), 127(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) of BNS, 2023 r/w 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.45 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant Manjula, wife of Poovarasan, lodged a complaint on 02.02.2026 stating that when she went to her mother's house along with her husband and child, the petitioners came there suspecting that the husband of the de-facto complainant or his friends were involved in the theft of the two wheeler belonging to the first petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioners entered the house, quarrelled with the family members, dragged the husband of the de-facto complainant outside, tied him to a roadside electric post and assaulted him with an iron rod and belt and also abused and attacked the family members. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was a wordy quarrel between the parties who are relatives and both sides attacked each other. He further submitted that the eighth petitioner has also lodged a counter complaint on 09.02.2026 and based on the same, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2026 against ten persons.

He further submitted that the injuries sustained are simple in nature and therefore prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that according to the prosecution these petitioners attacked the husband of the de-facto complainant and he sustained injuries. The occurrence took place on 02.02.2026 and the FIR was registered on 03.02.2026. Though the defacto complainant sustained only simple injuries and was discharged from the Government Hospital, Cuddalore on 03.02.2026, considering the manner in which the occurrence took place and the allegation that the petitioners tied the defacto complainant's husband to an electric post and assaulted him with an iron rod, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the occurrence took place on 02.02.2026 and the FIR was registered on 03.02.2026. Though the defacto complainant sustained only simple injuries, the allegations against the petitioners is that they tied the husband of the defacto complainant to an electric post and assaulted him with

an iron road. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the incident, this Court denies the anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. However, in light of the fact that the petitioners 6 and 7 are women, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 6 and 7, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners 6 & 7 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, on condition that the petitioners 6 & 7 shall execute a bond each for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners 6 & 7 fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners 6 & 7 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 6 & 7 released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e) If the petitioners 6 & 7 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 and ordered as against the petitioner 6 & 7. 10-03-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Pudhupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 10-03-2026