Jothi @ Jothieeshwaran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Natham

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No.6352 of 2026 1.Jothi @ Jothieeswaran 2.Mugesh @ Mukesh 3.Arunkumar 4.Ponnaiah @ Ponnaiya.

...Petitioners/Accused No.4,5,7&8

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.167 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.B.Jameelarasu 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 Crime No.167 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 109 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.167 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2026 at about 07.30 p.m, due to previous enmity, the petitioners and other accused are said to have attacked the brother of the complainant and two others with a knife, wooden log and stone and caused blood injuries to them. 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 petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the injured were discharged from the hospital and the co-accused was released on bail and no previous cases is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that due to pervious motive, the petitioners and other accused are said to have attacked the brother of the complainant and two others with a knife, wooden log and stone and caused blood injuries to them. Further, the fourth petitioner/A8 was arrested by the respondent police. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, he fairly conceded that the injured were discharge from the hospital and the co-accused was released on bail and the petitioners have no previous case.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that insofar as the fourth petitioner/A8 is concerned, since he was arrested, he seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made endorsement to that effect.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the submission made on either side, this Court is permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to withdraw this petition 3/6

insofar as the fourth petitioner/A8 is concerned. Hence, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as the fourth petitioner/A8 is concerned.

8. Insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners 1 to 3, and the injured were discharged from the hospital and the co-accused was released on bail and no previous case is pending against the other petitioners 1 to 3, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners 1 to 3 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) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul District, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners 1 to 3 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [c] the petitioners 1 to 3 shall not commit any offences 4/6

of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners 1 to 3 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners 1 to 3 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 1 to 3 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 1 to 3 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) 01.04.2026 dss 5/6

P. DHANABAL, J dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6352 of 2026 Date : 01.04.2026 6/6