V.Thangamani v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Shanarpatti
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.V.Thangamani 2.M.Sankar 3.V.Girija ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.31 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Mohamed Ashik Jaman PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.31 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(3), of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 (Under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 506(ii) of IPC), in Crime No. 31 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police , seek anticipatory bail.
2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, along with the other accused, attacked the de facto complainant and his father and mother using a sickle, wooden log, and steel rod, as a result of which they sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners 2 and 3 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court dated 19.02.2026 in Crl.OP(MD).No.3506 of 2026. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may 2/8
be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the 1st petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners, along with the other accused, attacked the defacto complainant and his father and mother, causing them to sustain injuries. He further submitted that there is one previous case pending against the 1st petitioner. He also further submitted that the petitioners have involved in very serious offence and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor/defacto complainant has strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that this Court had already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
3/8
7.Accordingly, the 1st petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, on condition that the 1st 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 Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy was made ready and on further conditions that:
[a]the 1st petitioner shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity;
[b] the 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., and 05.30 p.m., until further orders.
[c]the 1st petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. 4/8
[d]the 1st 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 1st petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 1st petitioner is 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
(S S Y J) 27.02.2026 (1/2) msrm 5/8
To 1.The learned Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/8
S.SRIMATHY,J msrm
ORDER
IN 27.02.2026 (1/2) 7/8
8/8