Mareeswaran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vachakarapatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6919 of 2026 1.Mareeswaran 2.Maran @ Manimaran 3.Manibarathi 4.Nithishkumar 5.Madhan @ Madhankumar ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vachakaraipatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.103 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Seenuramachandran Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.C.Jeyaprakash Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 103 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNSS and Section 4 of TNWPH Act, in Crime No.103 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the accused persons gathered together armed with dangerous weapons, attacked the defacto complainant parties and caused injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Due to previous enmity, the present false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. Due to previous enmity, the petitioners gathered together and assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. The injured sustained head 2/6

injury. Counter case has also been registered. Co-accused in this case has been granted bail. Both side sustained injured. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Investigation is still pending.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the defacto complainant is still in hospital. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

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, considering the previous dispute between the parties, that injured in this case has been discharged from the hospital, co-accused have been released on bail, there is a counter case also registered, in the counter case also the accused persons were released on anticipatory bail and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 3/6

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 05.00 p.m., until further orders; [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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 16.04.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vachakaraipatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.103 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6919 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 6/6