Dakshanamurthy v. The State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.05.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL 1.Dakshanamurthy 2.Manikandan 3.Prabavathi 4.Rajavalli ... Petitioners Vs.

State, represented by The Inspector of Police, U.Mangalam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.73 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to grant the anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime Number 73 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Raji For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners / accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 118(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (TNPHW) Act, in connection with the Cr. No.73 of 2026 seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are co-villagers. On 23.04.2026, a quarrel arose between them in connection with the conduct of a temple festival, during which both parties allegedly abused each other in filthy language and threatened one another with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have also lodged a counter case in Crime No.72 of 2026 against the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

2/6

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that, owing to a dispute between two groups regarding the conduct of a temple festival, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and others in filthy language and attacked each other, thereby causing injuries. He further submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners and that the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital. He also submitted that a counter complaint has been registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.72 of 2026. However, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties arose in connection with the conduct of a temple festival, that the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital, that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners, and that a counter case has also been registered, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

3/6

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 made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. 4/6

[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.2023.

13.05.2026 rkp/lpp Note:-

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

5/6

P.DHANABAL, J.

rkp/lpp To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

2. The Inspector of Police, U.Mangalam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

13.05.2026 6/6