Mayil v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Mayil
2. Arumugam
3. Sivasakthi
4. Kasthiri
5. Bharathi Raja
6. Hari Alias Hariharan
7. Ramaguru ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5, 7 & 8 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai.
(Crime No. 76 /2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 76 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioners : K.Rsghul Priyan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.76 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2026 at about 11.00 p.m, due to business motive, the petitioners and other accused are said to have trespassed in to the hotel of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and attacked him and caused injuries and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the injured was only treated as out patient and and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that due to business motive, the alleged occurrence was happened. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, he fairly conceded that and in that occurrence, the defacto complainant has sustained only simple injury and he was treated as out patient.
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, and there is a dispute between the parties with regard to conducting business and the injured was treated as out patient and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, 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) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, and on 3/6
further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for the 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.
4/6
(P D B J) 16.04.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.7407 of 2026 Date : 16/04/2026 6/6