Udhayanithi Alias Uthayanithi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Periyakulam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Udhayanithi @ Uthayanithi 2.Akash @ Mayakrishnan 3.Suriya @ Jayasooriya ..Petitioners/A1, A3 & A4 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station Theni District.
(Crime No. 163 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners :Mr.A.Banumathy 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. 163 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1, A3 & A4, 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 in Crime No.163 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2026, at about 08.00 p.m., the defacto complainant along with his friends participated in a temple procession near Aranmani Street. At that time, there was a quarrel between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also assaulted him and intimidated him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
2/8
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 further submitted 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 investigation is pending and the petitioners have no previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. 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 3/8
against the petitioners, and also considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, 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, Periyakulam, Theni District, 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 4/8
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 the conditions have been imposed and the 5/8
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) 27.03.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, Theni District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/8
7/8
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6062 of 2026 Date : 27.03.2026 8/8