Gobinath v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thottiyam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Gobinath 2.Rajkumar
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichy.
(Crime No. 78 of 2026 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karuna 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. 78 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2026, when the defacto complainant police, after knowing illegal mining activity of the petitioner, questioned the petitioner, the accused persons abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with weapons and causing injury. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner's friend borrowed a sum of Rs.36,000/- from the defacto complainant's friend and when the defacto complainant asked 2/7
to repay the amount, there was a wordy quarrel arose and they also assaulted the petitioner and his friends, due to which the petitioner also sustained injury. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would fairly submit that the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A3 and A1 attacked the defacto complainant in his head. He would further submit that the injured has discharged from the hospital and A1 has one previous case which is under NDPS Act and A3 has no previous case. 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 considering the facts that the injured discharged from the hospital, no previous case is pending against A3 and though one previous case is pending against A1, in that case the first petitioner/A1 was granted bail, I am inclined to grant 3/7
anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following 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) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thottiyam, Trichy, and on further conditions that:
[b] the first petitioner/A1 shall report before the Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Trichy, daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of thirty days, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation before the respondent police;
[c] the second petitioner/A3 shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of thirty days, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[d] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
4/7
[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[f] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] 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]. [h] 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 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thottiyam, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thottiyam Police Station, Trichy.
3. The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5741 of 2026 Date : 24.03.2026 7/7