Rahul v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Viruveedu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7218 of 2026 1.Rahul 2.Chitra 3.Pooja 4.Pradeep Kumar 5.Lakshmanan ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.58 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Abdul Hameed 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. 58 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 191(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 303 (2) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women of Harassment Act, in Crime No.58 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in a temple festival there was wordy quarrel between both parties, in which, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and assaulted upon them, thereby the defacto complainant 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. In a temple festival there was wordy quarrel between the parties. The petitioners lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant. 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. In a temple festival in the Village both parties quarreled each other. In which, both parties made assault upon each other. 2/6

Hence, counter case has also been registered. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Investigation is still pending. There are no previous case against the petitioners. Injured in this case has been discharged from the hospital.

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, considering the dispute between the parties, there is counter case also registered, even according to the prosecution, injured was discharged from the hospital, there is no previous case against the petitioners, 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 for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent 3/6

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) 10.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, Dindigul District. 4/6

2.The Inspector of Police, Viruveedu Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.58 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. 7218 of 2026 Date : 10.04.2026 6/6