Murugan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sivakasi East

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7833 of 2026 1.Murugan 2.Azhagar Raj 3.Sakkammal 4.R.Kunchulammal 5.S.Subbiah ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No not known/2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Dinesh, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. not known of 2026 on the file of the 1/6

respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 294(b) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW in Crime No. not known of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. Though petitioner was filed in the stage of crime number not known, at the time of hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the FIR was registered in Crime No.208 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity the accused persons picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused her in filthy language and also attacked her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Due to previous enmity, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the 2/6

petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. There is a previous dispute between the parties in respect of the relationship between the A1 and the sister of the defacto complainant. Due to which there was wordy quarrel between them, which leads to the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant. There is no previous case against the petitioners. Injured was discharged from the hospital. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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 petitioners, considering the dispute between the parties, injured was discharged from the hospital, there is no previous case against the petitioners, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 3/6

anticipatory 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 No.II, Sivakasi and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday, for a period of four weeks, thereafter, as and when required for 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 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 4/6

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 21.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7833 of 2026 Date : 21.04.2026 6/6