Saravanasundar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Saravanasundar 2.P.S.S.Bagyalakshmi 3.M.Ramakrishnan 4.A.Nagalingam
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madakulam Police Station, Madakulam, Madurai District (Crime No. 54 of 2026 )
...Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vijayakumar Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanidhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 54 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b),115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.54 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons threatened the defacto complainant both in person and over phone, coercing him to withdraw the complaint and due to such intimidation the complainant was under the depression and was forced to move from place to place fearing his life . While so on 09.02.2026 at about 1.08 pm., when the complainant was in his residence the petitioners trespassed into the house opening the gate and when the security guard attempted to prevent them they abused them in filthy language and pushed him aside and forcibly entered into the house abused in filthy language and also caused simple injuries on her hand and also criminally intimidated the complainant,hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are 2/7
no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on a particular date, whereas the complaint has been lodged only after delay three days without assigning any valid or acceptable reason. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioners have not only obtained the sale deeds for the flats at a lesser value by exerting pressure upon the defacto complainant but had also seen involved in several other criminal cases. Further the petitioners have cheated the public by promoting a finance company. While so on 09.02.2026 at about 1.08 pm., when the complainant was in his residence the petitioners trespassed into the house opening the gate and when the security guard attempted to prevent them they abused them in filthy language and pushed him aside and forcibly entered into the house abused in filthy language and also caused simple injuries on her hand and also criminally intimidated the complainant. Investigation is pending. Hence , he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3/7
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 against the petitioners and already there is a dispute between the parties in respect of execution of deed for the immovable property and already case has been registered in Crime No.64 of 2025 and already the petitioners have lodged counter complaint as against the defacto complainant and also considering the relationship between the parties, this Court is 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.V, Madurai District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during 4/7
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].
[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 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai District 2.The Inspector of Police, Madakulam Police Station, Madakulam, Madurai District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, 5/7
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J aav
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6748 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026 7/7