Aravind @ Aravinth v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Uthumalai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Aravind @ Aravinth ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tenkasi District.
(Crime No.42 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner:Mr.K.Kaleeswaran For Respondent:Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 1/8
329(4) and 324(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of Tamilnadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioners and other accused damaged the stainless steel pipe and also CCTV erected in front of the Amman Temple worth about Rs.10,000/- and when the defacto complainant questioned them, they abused the defacto complainant, who is the village head using filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioner and others. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been 2/8
falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that co-accused were released on bail. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.02.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has four previous cases and the offences are grave in nature. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of 3/8
offence, and there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the consecration of the temple and though the petitioner has four previous case, the same are not similar kind of offence and in all cases, he was released on bail and co-accused were released on bail and also considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 08.02.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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, Alangulam, Tenkasi District, 4/8
and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 5/8
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 BNS.
(P D B J) 16.04.2026 vsg 6/8
To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, Tenkasi District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Uthumalai Police Station, Tenkasi District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayankottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
P.DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7350 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 8/8