Satheesh Prasath v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nanguneri

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Satheesh Prasath 2.Kabilan 3.Sundara Ganabathi 4.Kalai @ Muthukumar ..Petitioners/Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.134 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners:Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan 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.134 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.134 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.02.2026, due to previous enmity between the petitioners' family and the defacto complainant's family, in a bore-well, the first accused had taken entire water without leaving for others. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, there was a wordy altercation between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and the petitioners attacked the 2/8

defacto complainant and caused injuries and also damaged the CCTV camera worth about Rs.10,000/-. 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 said incident. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the petitioners 3 and 4 have no previous cases, the first petitioner has one previous case and the second petitioner has two previous cases. He further submits that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and it is a case and counter case. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as the investigation is pending. 3/8

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 no previous case pending against the petitioners 3 and 4 and though the petitioners 1 and 2 have previous cases, in all case they were released on bail and also considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant 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) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the 4/8

learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, 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.

[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 5/8

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.

(P D B J) 26.03.2026 vsg 6/8

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. 2.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station Tirunelveli District.

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5922 of 2026 Date : 26.03.2026 8/8