Vijayarajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Panagudi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vijayarajan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District.
Crime No.321 of 2026.
... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.321 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanithi for Mr.V.Sasi Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.Muthumalai Raja ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.321 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.03.2026 at about 08.00 a.m, due to previous enmity with regard to irrigation of their agricultural land, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit thatdue to previous enmity with regard to irrigation of their agricultural 2/6
land, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him and threatened him with dire consequences and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 2 previous cases. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital.
5. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that the petitioner previously attacked the defacto complainant with sickle and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained severe injury in the vital part of the body and he also lost eye sight in his left eye. Hence, he strongly opposed 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 there is a dispute between the parties and already the injured was discharged from the hospital and FIR was registered on 08.03.2026, by this time, the material part of the investigation might have been completed and though the prosecution 3/6
stated that the petitioner has 2 previous cases, in those cases, he was released on bail, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [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 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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.
05.06.2026 2/2 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.
2.The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8167 of 2026 Date : 05/06/2026 2/2 6/6