Sakthivel v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Palani Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sakthivel ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.65 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner:Mr.K.Ramar For Respondent:Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the petitioner have entered into a sale agreement for the sale of the property owned by the defacto complainant and for which, they have received a substantial amount of Rs.30 lakhs as advance and agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the defacto complainant refused to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, due to family dispute. Thereafter, on 06.02.2026, at about 12.00 hours, the petitioner and other accused persons trespassed into the defacto complainant's 2/8

land and unlawfully assembled and attempting to make a shed, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner and other accused persons abused him in filthy language and tried to dash against the defacto complainant with JCB. As a result, he caused simply injury and others attacked the defacto complainant with hands. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that it is a case in counter case. a counter complaint has been registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.66 of 2026. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2026. Hence, he prays 3/8

to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that investigation is still pending. He would further submit that the petitioner has 2 previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. Therefore, he vehemently, opposed to grant of bail.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that there is a civil dispute pending between the parties and though the petitioner has 2 previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offence and in both the cases, he was released on bail and the 4/8

investigation in this case is still pending and counter case in Crime No.66 of 2026 has been registered against the defacto complainant and also considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 07.03.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

5/8

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned 6/8

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 BNS.

(P D B J) 16.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Dindigul District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P.DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7339 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 8/8