Rajivgandhi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, Palani Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rajivgandhi

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

(Crime No. 101 of 2026 )

...Respondent

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Harina Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 101 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 27(1) of Arms Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act in Crime No. 101 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2026, when the respondent police was in patrol duty, the petitioner was in possession of a long sword and took photograph with the said sword and uploaded the same in Instagram and thereby, creating panic and fear among the public. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that noone was injured in this case and the petitioner has one previous case similar in nature. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and also considering the facts that nobody was injured in this case and though the petitioner has one previous case, in that case already bail was granted to him, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, and on further conditions that: 3/6

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Inspector of Police, Ottanchatram Police Station, Dindigul, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

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

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take 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].

4/6

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

(P D B J) 24.03.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palani.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

3.The Inspector of Police Ottanchatram Police Station Dindigul.

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

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5183 of 2026 Date : 24.03.2026 6/6