Dhanasekar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. Dhanasekar S/o.Sekar, 768, Murugan Koil Street, Oraiyur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607 108.
2. Sekar S/o.Natesan, 768, Murugan Koil Street, Oraiyur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607 108..
3. Sabarinathan S/o.Sekar, 768, Murugan Koil Street, Oraiyur,Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607 108.
4. Rajadurai S/o.Chinnandi 613, Mariamman Koil Street, Oraiyur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607 108.
5. Balaji S/o.Subramani, 613, Mariamman Koil Street, Oraiyur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607 108.
6. Udol @ Santhanam S/o.Erusan 613, Mariamman Koil Street, Oraiyur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607 108.
..Petitioners
Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, Pudhupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.
(Crime No. 45/2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 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 and thus renders justice.
For Petitioners:
Mr. P.Krishnamurthi For Respondent(s):
MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(3), 127(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 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, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, Manjula, wife of Poovarasan, lodged a complaint on 02.02.2026 alleging that the petitioners, suspecting the involvement of her husband and his friends in the
theft of the first petitioner's two-wheeler, entered the house, quarreled with the family members, dragged her husband outside, tied him to an electric post, assaulted him with an iron rod and belt, and abused and attacked the family members. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused, namely Angalammal/A6 and Monicka/A7 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.5231 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026 and sought similar relief for the petitioners. Hence, he seeks 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 the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by these petitioners was dismissed on account of serious allegations that they assaulted the defacto complainant using an iron rod and belt. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Having regard to the fact that the respondent police have note secured the petitioners since March 2026 and considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and the co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required at this length of time. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners 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 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 Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners 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;
(c) The petitioners shall stay at Coimbatore and report before Singanallur Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m, for a period of 15 days and thereafter appear before the respondent police 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.
01-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti 2.The Inspector of Police, Pudhupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
DRL 01-06-2026