Krishnan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Krishnan
...Petitioners/Sole Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kudangulam Police Station Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No. 363 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Prabu 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. 363 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 75 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.363 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2026, at about 23.30 hours, due to previous pathway dispute, the petitioner had trespassed into the the defacto complainant's house and sexually harassed her. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent 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 2/8
prosecution. He would further submit that due to pathway dispute, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the offence is grave in nature the investigation is pending. There was a previous pathway dispute between the parties. The petitioner has previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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 petitioner and there was a previous pathway dispute and the alleged occurrence took place on 3/8
07.04.2026, however the date of FIR is on 09.04.2026 and hence, there is a delay in filing FIR and though the petitioner has previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offences and in all cases, he was granted bail and also considering all the facts and 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, Radhapuram, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 4/8
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.
[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 5/8
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) 20.04.2026 vsg 6/8
To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kudangulam Police Station Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7667 of 2026 Date : 20.04.2026 8/8