Rajkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mallanginar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Rajkumar 2.Kochadai 3.Muthu @ Muthuselvam 4.Sonai 5.Kochadai @ Maniyatti Kochadai 6.Sangaiya 7.Muthaiya ..Petitioners/ A5,6, 10 to 14 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Mallanginaru Police Station Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.82 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant 1/7
For Petitioners:Mr.G.Mariappan Advocate.
For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 82 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A5,6, 10 to 14, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 109, 49 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002, in Crime No.82 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during the temple festival, on 31.03.2026, the petitioners and other accused persons assembled unlawfully, attacked the defacto complainant and 2/7
their members with dangerous weapons and caused injuries to them. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons 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 the co-accused were released on bail by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police fairly submits that the injured persons has been discharged from the hospital and the petitioners have no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
3/7
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 also considering the fact that no previous cases pending against the petitioners and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and the co-accused were already released on bail by this Court, 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,Kariyapatti, and on further 4/7
conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[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 5/7
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) 16.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,Kariyapatti.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mallanginaru Police Station Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7420 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 7/7