Marimuthu v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sayalkudi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL OP(MD)No.4861 of 2026 1.Marimuthu 2.Thangapandi 3.Thirumani @ Thirumani Selvam 4.Selva Ganesh 5.Marishwaran 6.B.Balamurugan 7.Ramar ... Petitioners / Accused

Versus

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.80 of 2026) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crime No.80 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.V.Malaiyendran For Respondent :

Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/7

For Intervenor :

Mr.T.Antony Arulraj 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 189(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act @ Sections 189(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act in Crime No.80 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.02.2026, due to political rivalry between the parties in connection with the election for the Fishermen Association President, the accused persons allegedly abused the defacto complainant and others in filthy language, assaulted them causing injuries, and criminally intimidated them. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely 2/7

implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are lawabiding citizens and are ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He also brought to the notice of this Court that, subsequent to the filing of the petition, the offences have been altered to include Section 4 of the TNPHW Act. Accordingly, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are some previous cases against the petitioners. He also submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Accordingly, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, the nature of the offence, and also taking into account that the injured has 3/7

already been discharged from the hospital, and that though the petitioners have some previous cases, bail has already been granted to them in those cases, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District, 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 sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned 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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall report before the Inspector of Police, Muthukulathur Police Station, 4/7

Ramanathapuram daily at 06.30 p.m. for a period of thirty days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(c) the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

(d) the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;

(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(f) 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 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].

5/7

(g) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to furnish common sureties, it is for the concerned Magistrate to consider the same at the time of execution of sureties. 23.03.2026 (2/2) pal To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kadaladi, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to The Inspector of Police, Muthukulathur Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

6/7

P.DHANABAL ,J.

pal

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4861 of 2026 Date : 23.03.2026 (2/2) 7/7