Sankar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Srivilliputhur Town

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6994 of 2026 1.Sankar 2.Sathish Kumar ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.174 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Krishnakannan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Ms.N.Vijayalakshmi PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 174 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

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) and 351(3) of BNS and 1/6

Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.174 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.2026, due to the previous enmity, the petitioners along with other accused persons abused the defacto complainant and her husband in filthy language and also attacked them, thereby they sustained 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 the previous motive, the present case has been lodged by the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offence is grave in nature. There is previous dispute between the parties. Due to that motive, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and her husband and picked up wordy quarrel with them and abused them and attacked them. The petitioners have some previous cases. He vehemently opposed the grant of 2/6

anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Injured was discharged from the hospital. Investigation is still pending.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor seeks time to file petition. So far she has not filed any petition. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass orders on available records.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, that there was previous dispute between the parties, that the injured discharged from the hospital, though the petitioners have some previous cases, they are not similar in nature, in all those cases they were granted bail, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 3/6

No.II, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday, for a period of four weeks, 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 09.04.2026 4/6

TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.174 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. 6994 of 2026 Date : 09.04.2026 6/6