Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/7047/2026partly allowed

S.Jahir Hussain v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Atchampudur

2026-04-09Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

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. 7047 of 2026 1.S.Jahir Hussain 2.A.Shaul Hameed 3.S.Nabishal 4.Meena ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Atchampudur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.125 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Karansingh 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. 125 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 1/6

the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.125 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2026 at 14.00 hours, when the defacto complainant along with five others travelling in their Car, the accused person riding his motor cycle in high speed. When the same was questioned, the accused picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him. 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. Originally the defacto complainant riding his Car in very slow manner without giving way to others. When the same was questioned by the petitioners, defacto complainant picked up quarrel with the petitioners and also assaulted them. Due to which the petitioners taken treatment at Government Hospital, Tenkasi. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offence is grave in nature. The case has been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 303 of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. While riding their vehicles in the High Ways, there is wordy altercation between the parties, in which the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and picked up wordy quarrel with them and assaulted them. The injuries are simple injuries and treated as out patient. The petitioners 1 to 3 have some previous cases. The fourth petitioner is not arrayed as accused in this case. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 to 3.

6. Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the fourth petitioner is not arrayed as accused in this case, granting of anticipatory bail does not arise. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed in respect of fourth petitioner. 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 1 to 3, considering that there is a 3/6

dispute arose between the parties while riding their vehicles, though the petitioners 1 to 3 have some previous cases, in all those cases they were granted bail, the injuries are small in nature and the injured were treated as out patient and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 to 3, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners 1 to 3 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, Shencottah and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners 1 to 3 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 1 to 3 shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners 1 to 3 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners 1 to 3 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. 4/6

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 1 to 3 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 1 to 3 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 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah.

2.The Inspector of Police, Atchampudur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.125 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7047 of 2026 Date : 09.04.2026 6/6