Mariappan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rajapalayam North
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Mariappan ... Petitioner/A4 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
Crime No.667/2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.667/2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : D. Rajaboopathy, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 194 of BNSS, 2023, was altered into Section 105 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.667 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's deceased son was a contract worker of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Department. On 29.12.2025, at about 04.30 p.m, due to electrocution, the son of the defacto complainant died. The said occurrence was happened only due to the negligence of the electricity board officials and the supervisory staff, a case has been registered against them for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and has was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the son of the complainant died of electrocution while working on an electric pole. Only for the statistical purpose, present case has been foisted against him and no previous case is pending against 2/6
him. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that due to electrocution, the son of the defacto complainant died on 29.12.2025. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, he fairly conceded that the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner has no previous case.
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 one of the co-accused was released on anticipatory bail and the petitioner has no previous case, 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, and on further 3/6
conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
4/6
01.04.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5640 of 2026 Date : 01/04/2026 6/6