Vimal v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Vimal 2.Vignesh 3.Pandi @ Veerapandi @ Veerapandiyan ..Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Bazar Police Station Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.86 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners:Mr.N.Jeyaram Sidharth 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.86 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 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.86 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2026, at about 10.00 p.m., the defacto complainant was standing near his house. At that time, the second petitioner questioned him regarding his sister's bride seeing ceremony. Due to which, a wordy altercation arose between the parties and thereafter, the petitioners and other accused persons trespassed into the defacto complainant's house, abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with hands and beer 2/7
bottles and caused injuries on his head. 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. He would further submit that it is a case and counter case. 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 injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as the investigation is pending.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3/7
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners and the petitioners have no previous cases and also considering the fact that 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 4/7
10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days 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 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 5/7
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 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Bazar Police Station Ramanathapuram 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. 6013 of 2026 Date : 26.03.2026 7/7