Joshapraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sanarpatti
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Joshapraj ...Petitioners/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.127 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.A.Abdul Hameed 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.127 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2)(NP), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, Act, in Crime No.127 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is an agriculturalist and he is keeping more than 50 cows in his house. On 20.01.2026, while they were being gazed, two cows went missing. Thereafter, he came to know that the missing cows were at the petitioner's house. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the accused persons abused and assaulted him. Hence, this 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. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioners had stolen cows from the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous cases. 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 also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence took place on 20.01.2026 and the complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant belatedly and the petitioner has no previous cases, 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 III, Dindigul, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days 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 5/7
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) 06.04.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul 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. 5958 of 2026 Date : 06.04.2026 7/7