T.Jayaprakash @ Jai Prakash v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sivagiri
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. T.Jayaprakash @ Jai Prakash,
2. M.Manikandan,
3. A.Selvaraj,
4. S.Karuppaiya,
5. B.Vinothkumar,
6. B.Pandiaraj
7. S.Kaliraj,
8. K.Kuttiraja,
9. K.Karthick,
10. R.Murugan,
11. Ramaraj,
12. Veeraiya, 1/8
13. Kumar,
14. Muthukumar,
15. Senthilkumar,
...Petitioners/Accused
Nos.2,3, 35 to 47 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station Tenkasi.
(Crime No. 116 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Karansingh Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 116 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No. 2/8
116 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during the Panguni Uthiram festival in the defacto complainant village, on 01.04.2026 at about 7:15 p.m., when members of the defacto complainant community were taking a Pongal pot procession, all the accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and thrown stones, bricks, and sticks at them, as a result of which, the defacto complainant and others sustained injuries and the accused damaged 18 tube lights and serial lights that had been installed for the temple festival. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by theprosecution. He would further submit that some of the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7434 of 2026 dated 16.04.2026. He would further submit that they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail for the petitioners. 3/8
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. He would further submit that there is a dispute between two groups in conducting temple festival and already counter case was registered an injured was discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that most of the petitioners have previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.
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 facts that there is a dispute between two groups in conducting temple festival and already counter case was registered an injured was discharged from the hospital and though some of the petitioners have previous cases, in all cases they 4/8
were granted bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on 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, Sivagiri, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which they are suspected;
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted 5/8
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 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 BNS.
(P D B J) 17.04.2026 apd 6/8
To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station Tenkasi.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7530 of 2026 Date : 17.04.2026 8/8