Subramani v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vangal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05.03.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL.OP.(MD).No.4429 of 2026 1.Subramani 2.Arukkani 3.M.Anand @ Dhayanath ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station, Karur District.
(Crime No.49 of 2026) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER in all cases :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 49 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 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS r/w 1/6
Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.49 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. It is submitted that though the petition has been filed in the crime number not known stage, now the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that now the FIR has been registered and the crime number is 49 of 2026. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to the dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant relating to the land on 08.02.2026 at 5.30 p.m., the petitioners said to have assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence the case has been registered for the above said offences on receipt of the complaint from the defacto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they are innocent persons. The injured has been discharged from the hospital. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation is against the first petitioner alone. So far as remaining accused there is no allegation in the FIR. Hence, he seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The learned counsel further submit that the third petitioner's name was wrongly typed as 'Dhayanath' instead of 'Anand @ Dhayanath'.
2/6
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent on instructions opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, it is true that as on date in FIR, there is no mention about the petitioners 2 and 3. However, investigation is still pending. The injured in this case has been discharged from the hospital.
5.The learned counsel further submit that the third petitioner's name was wrongly typed as 'Dhayanath' instead of 'Anand @ Dhayanath'. Let the name be corrected in the cause title.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the injured in this case has been discharged from the hospital, there is a previous dispute between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like 3/6
sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order made ready and on further conditions that:
[a]the petitioners and the sureties 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of fifteen days and thereafter, as and when required. [c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d]the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners are 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.
05.03.2026 TM 4/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station, Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.4429 of 2026 Date : 05.03.2026 6/6