Paul Samuel Thomas v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Thatchanallur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Paul Samuel Thomas

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station Tirunelveli City.

(Crime No.187 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Poornachandran Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener :Mr.D.Venkatachalam PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.187 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 296(b), 118(1), 49 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.187 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant purchased some property in his wife name. In order to cheat the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant's wife sole some of the property with the help of the petitioner. Hence, the defacto complainant preferred a civil suit in O.S.No.305 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge I, Tirunelveli. The same is pending. When the same stood thus, on 06.04.2026, at about 12.15 a.m., when the defacto complainant was going to 2/8

his house, at that time, the petitioner and other accused persons waylaid the defacto complainant and assaulted him and caused injuries. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person 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. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant by collecting a sum of Rs.17,60,000/- to register sale deed and thereafter, he has not repaid the amount. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3/8

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the offence is grave in nature and the investigation is pending. The petitioner has no previous cases. He would further submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

7.Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and the petitioner has no previous cases and there is a money dispute between the parties and the material part of the investigation might have been completed and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and also considering all the facts and 4/8

circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is 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 No.IV, Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

5/8

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

[e] the petitioner 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 petitioner 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].

6/8

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 20.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station Tirunelveli City.

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7698 of 2026 Date : 20.04.2026 8/8