Velayutham v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Velayutham ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police Mathur Police Station Mathur, Krishnagiri District.

(CrimeNo.59/2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Cr.No. 59/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Mathur, Krishnagiri District and pass such further suitable orders.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.E.Manikandan For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No. 59 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.02.2026, when the de facto complainant, Mr. Murugan, was returning to his house after supplying ground water to his agricultural land, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 attacked him. Suddenly, the petitioner (arrayed as Accused No. 3) arrived at the spot, attacked him with a wooden log, and used filthy language, following which Accused No. 4 and Accused No. 5 jointly assaulted him. Based on the statement recorded from the de facto complainant at the Government Hospital, Mathur, the respondent police registered the FIR. Hence the case. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, an aged diabetic patient, and has been falsely implicated due to a long-standing land dispute and an active civil suit pending in the year 2025 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Pochampalli. He further submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition before this Court, the first application in Crl.O.P. No. 7977 of 2026 having been dismissed on 30.03.2026. He stated that the injuries on the de facto complainant resulted from a self-inflicted two-wheeler accident under the influence of alcohol. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal cases pending against him and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 3 and specifically used a weapon (wooden log) during the commission of the offence. However, he submitted that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital and confirmed that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offences, the underlying civil and land disputes between the parties, the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District on condition that

the petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[b] the petitioner 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 BNSS, 2023.

14-05-2026 SHA

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 the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To:

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.

2.The The Inspector of Police Mathur Police Station Mathur, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL, J.

SHA 14-05-2026