Veeramanikandan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Veeramanikandan

...Petitioner

/Accused No.2 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Puddukkottai Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No. 53 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :Mr.S.Selvakrishnan 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. 53 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.53 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a tea stall and the A1 is well known to her and he used to come tea stall buy cigarettes, so he has to give Rs. 1,200/-. On 17.01.2026, the same was asked by the defacto complainant, the petitioner and other accused persons abused her in filthy language and attacked her with hands and pushed her down and threatened her. Hence, the 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 submits that investigation is pending and 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 against the petitioner and also considering the 3/7

fact that he 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Thoothukudi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not commit 4/7

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 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].

5/7

[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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Thoothukudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Puddukkottai Police Station, Thoothukudi 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. 6142 of 2026 Date : 27.03.2026 7/7