Archunan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Oomachikulam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Archunan
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station Madurai District.
(Crime No. 11 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar 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. 11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 121(1) of BNS r/w 4 of TNPHW Act, @ 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 121(1) and 351(2) of BNS, r/w 4 of TNPHW Act and 83(2) of JJ Act, in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.02.2026 at about 09.30 p.m., the defacto complainant namey, S.Meenkshi, who is working as a Women Head Constable . When she was returning home, the petitioner and other accused persons intercepted the defacto complainant's vehicle, pulled her uniform and also assaulted her with hands and sick. Hence, the case.
2/7
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the coaccused was released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the petitioner has no previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, 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 3/7
against the petitioner and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and also considering the fact that the petitioner has no previous cases and the co-accused was released on bail by the trial Court, 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 No.V, Madurai, Madurai District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai, Madurai District, once in a week ie., on Every Monday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and 4/7
thereafter, as and when required for 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 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 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 25.03.2026 vsg To 1.The udicial Magistrate Court No.V, Madurai, Madurai District,.
2.The Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam Police Station Madurai 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. 5916 of 2026 Date : 25.03.2026 7/7