Veerammal 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.1236 of 2026 1.Veerammal 2.Jeyapriya 3.Aarthy ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.4 of 2026) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.P.Senguttuarasan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.C.Jeganathan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/5

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, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 303(1), 49 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant has been married for the past 15 years and has two female children, who are studying at Theni. The husband of the defacto complainant, one Sathishkumar, is serving, as a Head Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF). The husband owns a garden land at Thondrathi Village. The Husband of the de-facto complainant in order to sell the said land along with his elder brother Jagatheeskumar, had gone to the said property. The de facto complainant and her sister-in-law who is the wife of her brother-in-law were staying in the house situated in the said garden land. While so, on 10.01.2026 at about 2.00 p.m., the 1st petitioner, namely Veerammal, who is the second wife of the complainant's father-in-law, and the second petitioner came to the said garden land without any permission and started plucking and removing the coconuts from the coconut trees situated therein. When the complainant came outside and questioned them, the petitioners replied arrogantly. At that time, a wordy quarrel ensued among the 2/5

petitioners and the de facto complainant, during which an assault took place, which was instigated by the third petitioner over the phone to assault the defacto complainant. Further, until the sister-in-law came running to rescue her, the petitioners repeatedly assaulted the complainant by pushing her to the ground and trampling on her. Hence, the present FIR. 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 to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.This Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners and referred the matter to mediation, since the petitioners submitted that there is a possibility of settlement. Today, it is reported that mediation failed and there is no possibility of settlement.

3/5

6.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, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court is vacated and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16.02.2026 TMG (2/2) TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, 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.1236 of 2026 Date : 16.02.2026 (2/2) 5/5