S.Suthan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, South Thamaraikkulam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/04/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. S.Suthan, S/o.Subramanian,
2. S.Senthil Arasu, S/o.Subramanian, ... Petitioners/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikkulam Police Station, Kanyakumari, Crime No.49/2026.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Yasmin Begum P, For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Aron PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.49/2026 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 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 303(2) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, in Crime No.49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute, on 31.08.2025, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also assaulted him. Hence, the case.
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. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the injured discharged from the hospital and the petitioners have no 2/6
previous case. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Mr.Aron, learned counsel seeks an adjournment on the ground that he is going to file an intervening application on behalf of the defacto complainant and he has also strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stating that the petitioners have blocked the pathway by dumping metals.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners and there is a family dispute between the parties and the injured was discharged from the hospital, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
3/6
[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) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the 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 4/6
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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 06.04.2026 tta TO 1.Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikkulam Police Station, Kanyakumari,
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J tta
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6562 of 2026 Date : 06/04/2026 6/6