Raveendhar, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Uthamapalayam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Raveendhar 2.Vanadevi 3.Kaluvan ..Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station Theni District.
(Crime No. 129 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners:Mr.S.Maruthupandian Advocate.
For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 129 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 49 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.129 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant. Due to family dispute, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, threatened her and criminally intimidated her. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above 2/7
said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the petitioners have no previous cases and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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 petitioners and relationship between the parties, and also considering the fact that no previous cases pending against the petitioners and the injured has been discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following 3/7
conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
4/7
[e] the petitioners 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 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].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners requested this Court to permit them 5/7
to furnish a common surety , since all the petitioners are family members.
8.It is for the Magistrate to take a decision in accordance with law.
(P D B J) 25.03.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5560 of 2026 Date : 25.03.2026 7/7