← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/2896/2026dismissed

Marimuthu v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sattur Town

2026-06-03Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal9 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Marimuthu, ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar Disrict.

Crime No.42 of 2026..

2. Kaliraj, S/o.Koodandi,

3. Mariyappan, S/o.Subbiah, ... Respondents in Crl.O.P(MD).No.2896 of 2026

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar Disrict.

Crime No.42 of 2026..

1/9

2. Lakshmi @ Jeyalakshmi, W/o. Kaliraj,

3. Mariyappan, S/o.Subbiah, ... Respondents in Crl.O.P(MD).No.2977 of 2026 PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD).No.2896 of 2026 :- To cancel the Bail order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sathur, Virudhunagar District in Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026, granted to the 1st Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police. Prayer in Crl.O.P(MD).No.2977 of 2026 To Set aside the order passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P.No. 245 of 2026, dated 23.01.2026 and subsequently Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 2nd Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan, (In both Crl.O.Ps) For R1 : Mr.R.Mohamed Riyaz, (In both Crl.O.Ps) Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.Solaisamy (In both Crl.O.Ps) 2/9

COMMON ORDER Crl.O.P(MD).No.2896 of 2026 has been filed to cancel the bail order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sathur, Virudhunagar District in Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026, granted to the 1st Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2977 of 2026 has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2026, dated 23.01.2026 and subsequently Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 2nd Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

3. According to the petitioner, he is one of the victims and an injured witness in this case. Based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent/defacto complainant, a case in Crime No. 42 of 2026 was registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) and 351(2) 3/9

of the BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act. The second respondent in both cases have attacked the defacto complainant with a wooden log and hands. When they were returning to their home, the petitioner questioned them about the incident that had occurred at the house of the defacto complainant. At that time, the accused persons attacked the petitioner with an aruval on his hip, pushed him to the ground and caused severe injuries to him. Thereafter, he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Sattur. The first respondent police obtained a statement from the third respondent/defacto complainant and registered an FIR. Subsequently, the accused persons approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P. Nos.124 and 245 of 2026 and the same was granted on the ground that the third respondent/defacto complainant had sustained only simple injuries and had been discharged from the hospital.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons, only the defacto complainant had been discharged from the hospital, whereas the petitioner was still undergoing treatment. He was discharged only on 23.01.2026, after receiving treatment in the hospital for more than seven 4/9

days. It was further submitted that the petitioner had incurred medical expenses for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for his treatment. According to the learned counsel, these facts were not brought to the notice of the Court while granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent in both petitions is liable to be cancelled.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/third respondent, a case in Crime No. 42 of 2026 was registered against the second respondent and the other accused. Thereafter, the accused persons approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail. The first respondent police strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to them. However, anticipatory bail was granted on the ground that the injured persons had sustained only simple injuries and had been discharged from the hospital. It was further submitted that the accused persons have complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court without fail.

5/9

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent/defacto complainant, the case in Crime No. 42 of 2026 was registered against the second respondent in both petitions. Thereafter, they approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail and the first respondent police strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to them. However, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the injured persons had been discharged from the hospital, granted anticipatory bail to them. Therefore, no valid ground is available for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court.

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

8. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/third respondent, a case in Crime No. 42 of 2026 was registered against the second respondent in both petitions. Thereafter, the accused persons approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail and anticipatory bail was granted on the ground that the injured persons had sustained only simple 6/9

injuries and had been discharged from the hospital. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had not been discharged from the hospital on the date when the anticipatory bail petitions were considered. However, in order to substantiate his contention, no material document has been produced before this Court. On the contrary, the documents produced by the petitioner indicate that he was discharged from the hospital on 21.01.2026, whereas the anticipatory bail petitions were considered only on 23.01.2026 and 27.01.2026. Therefore, no valid ground is made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent in both cases. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.

03.06.2026 TTA 7/9

TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sathur, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur

3. Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar Disrict.

8/9

P. DHANABAL,J TTA

ORDER

IN Date : 03/06/2026 9/9