Velmurugan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.S.Velmurugan 2.V.Buvaneswari ..Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.94 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners:Mr.R.Jagadeeshwaran Advocate.
For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 94 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 296(b), 316(2), 318(3), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.94 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2022, there was a sale agreement between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and thereby, the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.11,64,000/- from the defacto complainant on various dates. Thereafter, the defact complainant came to know that the land was not belonged to the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.
2/7
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 said incident. He would further submit that there was a civil dispute 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 the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. He would fairly submits that the petitioners have no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3/7
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners and there was a civil dispute between the parties and the material part of the investigation might have been completed and also considering the fact that no previous cases pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, 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, Sattur, Viruthunagar District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 4/7
10.30 a.m.,for a period of 30 days and 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 5/7
SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 22.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Viruthunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station Virudhunagar 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. 6516 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026 7/7