Murugan v. The State Represented By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Murugan

2. Sakthivel

3. Arunkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by, Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station Coimbatore District.

Crime No.108 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners in the event of his arrest or on their appearance before any court in connection with the case in Crime No.108 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.D.Lakshmipathy For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 / Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.108 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek

anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, due to a wordy quarrel between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant using a wooden log due to which the de facto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant using wooden log resulting in the de facto complainant sustaining injuries. He further submits that the petitioners have five previous cases pending against them and that the injured has been discharged from the Hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

6. Considering the submissions on either side, nature of offences, though the petitioners have five previous cases pending against them, considering the fact that the said cases are not of similar kind and that the injured has been discharged from the Hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 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 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, with two sureties each 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that:

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks

and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [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;

[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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rap

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station Coimbatore District.

Crime No. 108 of 2026

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.DHANABAL, J.

rap 13-05-2026