Vignesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ettayapuram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vignesh ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station, Thoothukkudi District.
Crime No.130 of 2026.
... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.130 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Saravanan A, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 49, 287 & 288 of BNS, 2023, Section 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, in Crime No.130 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2026, at about 12.30 p.m, the respondent police received a secret information about the preparation of explosives substances for firework manufacturing without proper permission. On receipt of the same, the respondent police went to the place of occurrence and found 30 kg of explosives substances and an electronic weighing machine and other materials. Hence, a case has been registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and has was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that no one has sustained injury in this case and no previous case 2/6
is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and other accused are said to have prepared the explosives substances for firework manufacturing without getting proper permission. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, he fairly conceded that no one has sustained injury in this case and the petitioner has no previous case.
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 no one has sustained injury in this case and the petitioner has no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be 3/6
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.2, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [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 petitioner 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]. 4/6
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
01.04.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi, 2.The Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station, Thoothukkudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6358 of 2026 Date : 01/04/2026 6/6