Muthukumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Radhapuram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Muthukumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
Cr.No.161/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.161 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Arun Ramnath A, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent 1/6
for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 296(b), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, which is equivalent to Sections 142, 294(b), 342, 321, 324 and 506 of IPC, in Crime No.161 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2026, at about 05.00 p.m, when the defacto complainant's husband was standing in the street, the petitioner and other accused are said to have attacked him with an iron rod. When the same was questioned by the complainant, they also attacked her and caused injuries to them and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, a case has been registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioner 2/6
and the co-accused was released on bail. 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 attacked the husband of the complainant and complainant with an iron rod and caused injuries to them and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, he fairly conceded that it is a case and case in counter and counter case has been registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.162 of 2026 and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the co-accused was released on bail. Hence, he prays 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, and it is a case and case in counter and counter case has been 3/6
registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.162 of 2026 and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the co-accused was released on bail, 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
4/6
[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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
01.04.2026 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6436 of 2026 Date : 01/04/2026 6/6