Dhanasekar v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Dhanasekar 2.Vignesh @ Vicky ... Petitioners/A3 & A4 Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

... Respondent (Crime No.33 of 2026) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.A.Murugavel For Respondent :

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

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 196, 324(5), 351(3) of BNS r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.33 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that due to dispute regarding 1/6

political rivalries the petitioners along with other accused abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and assaulted him and also threatened him with dire consequences and also damaged the banners of particular political party. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that this is a case arising in respect of political rivalry and even according to the allegation, there was no injury to anyone and the damages caused by the petitioners is only in respect of flex board of other political party. However, he would fairly submit that there is also a counter case filed by the mother of A1 against the defacto complainant in this case and the First Information Report was registered on 22.02.2026 and also A5 was already 2/6

remanded to judicial custody. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the registration of First Information Report mainly on 22.02.2026 by this time, investigation might have been completed. At this juncture, no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Therefore, considering the above fact and upon the fact that FIR was registered on 22.02.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, subject to certain stringent conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory 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 made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond 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 3/6

Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned 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;

(c) The petitioners shall stay at Madurai and sign before the Tallakulam police station daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., for a period of four 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 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

11.03.2026 ssi 4/6

To:

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyur, Chengalpattu District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Cheyyur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN,J., ssi 5/6

11.03.2026 6/6