Sheik Abdulla v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Cantonment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Sheik Abdulla 2.Alagu Malai 3.Sheik Pareet 4.Sheik ...Petitioners/Accused Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy District.
(Crime No.1486 of 2024) ..Respondent For Petitioners :Mr.M.Mohan Raj For Respondent :Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.1486 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. 1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 140 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.1486 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.07.2024, due to previous enmity with respect to the money dispute pending between the husband of the defacto complainant and one Sakthi Kumar, the petitioners and other accused persons kidnapped the husband of the defacto complainant in a car. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above 2/7
said incident. He would further submit that there was a money dispute pending between the parties. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that due to money dispute, the petitioners committed the above said offences. He would further submit that the petitioners have no previous cases, the offences are grave in nature, the investigation is still pending and no one sustained any injury. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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 3/7
against the petitioners and also considering the fact that there was a money dispute pending between the parties and the investigation is almost completed and no previous case is pending against the petitioners and no one sustained any injury, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioners 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) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners 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 4/7
thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioners 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 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/petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 06.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy 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. 6476 of 2026 Date : 06.04.2026 7/7