Satheeshkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Viruveedu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.902 of 2026 1.Satheeshkumar 2.Jegadeeshkumar 3.Hemalatah 4.Divyabharathi ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Viruveedu Dindigul District.

(Crime No.5 of 2026) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Vihru PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(2), 296(b), 118(1), 1/5

351(3), 303(1)(NP) of BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons of first wife of Jeya prakash and defacto complainant is the daughter of the second wife of Jeyaprakash and there existed family dispute between them. The petitioners 3 and 4 are the wives of the petitioners 1 and 2. In the said circumstance, the said Jeyaprakash had died on 06.12.2025. On 10.01.2026 the petitioners engaged in harvesting coconuts from the coconut trees wherein the defacto complainant had questioned the same leading to quarrel whereby the petitioners attacked her, threatened her with dire consequence and also used filthy language. Hence, a case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed 2/5

to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.When the petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners sought the permission of this Court to withdraw the petition as far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned and has also made an endorsement to that effect.

6.In view of the above said submission, the criminal original petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned. 7.This case was referred to mediation and it is reported that the mediation failed. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific overt act against the petitioners 3 and 4, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 3 and 4 at this stage.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, as far as the petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned.

16.02.2026 TMG (1/2) 3/5

TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Viruveedu Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY, J.

TMG

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.902 of 2026 Date : 16.02.2026 (1/2) 5/5