← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2274/2026partly allowed

K.Anantharaj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2026-03-24Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No.2274 of 2026

1. K.Anantharaj

2. M.Manobala

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tenkasi District (Crime No. 23 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Karansingh For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 23 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioners/ Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 118,131,351(3),310(2) of BNS in Crime No.23 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2026 at about 18.45 hrs the accused called the defacto complainant through Grindr App and when he arrived at the place of occurrence the accused robbed the silver bangle of the defacto complainant and also demanded Rs.3000/- through google pay and when the defacto complainant told the wrong password the accused attacked him with knife and caused injury . Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner was detained under Act. 14 of 1982 and the second petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. The second petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.01.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the second petitioner. 2/6

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that on 16.01.2026 at about 18.45 hrs the accused called the defacto complainant through Grindr App and when he arrived at the place of occurrence the accused robbed the silver bangle of the defacto complainant and also demanded Rs.3000/- through google pay and when the defacto complainant told the wrong password the accused attacked him with knife and caused injury. He would further submit that the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the second petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence and considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and even though the second petitioner has some previous case in those cases he was granted bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the second petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[a] Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, and on further conditions that: [b] the second petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the second petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

[d] the second petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the second 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take 4/6

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].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

7. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, he was detained under Act. 14 of 1982 and the petition was dismissed as against the first petitioner through an order dated 25.02.2026.

(P D B J) 24.03.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil 2.The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tenkasi District

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN Date : 24.03.2026 6/6