Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/7537/2026granted

Maheswari Alias Usha v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Poovanthi

2026-04-21Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Maheswari @ Usha

2. Mutheeswari

3. V.Mutheeswaran

4. P.Veerakumar ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Poovanthi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

Crime No.58 of 2026.

... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.58 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioners : Karansingh K, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the 1/6

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b) & 115(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act (Corresponding Sections 147, 294(b) & 323 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW 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 the defacto complainant is the owner of the property comprised in S.No.108/32 and the same is under the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and their relatives. In such circumstances, on 12.04.2026 at about 06.30 p.m, when the defacto complainant and his relatives were cleaning the said property, the petitioners are said to have abused them in filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, this 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 2/6

submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous cases is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that when the defacto complainant and his relatives were cleaning the disputed property, the petitioners are said to have abused the defacto complainant and his relatives in filthy language and assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending and it is a case and case in counter and counter complaint was registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.57 of 2026 and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous cases is pending against the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature 3/6

of offences charged against the petitioners, and there is a civil dispute between the parties and counter complaint was registered against the complainant and the injured was discharged from the hospital 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, Thiruppuvanam, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, 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 4/6

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) 21.04.2026 dss 5/6

P. DHANABAL,J dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppuvanam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Poovanthi Police Station, Sivagangai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7537 of 2026 Date : 21/04/2026 6/6