P.Satheesh Kumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Panakudi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7953 of 2026 P.Satheesh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Panakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.493 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivaram Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 493 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 351(3), 49, 109(1) and 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.493 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, 1/6

seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, thereby wordy quarrel arose between them, in which, the petitioner along with other accused trying to attack the defacto complainant. 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 prosecution. The petitioner is not the named accused in the FIR. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the offences are grave in nature. The defacto complainant was working in abroad. After he returned to home, he came to know that his wife have affair with another person. When the same was questioned by him, the petitioner along with other persons attempted to attack the defacto complainant. At the instigation of this petitioner, other petitioners planned. Hence, he vehemently 2/6

opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner has no previous case.

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, the petitioner is not named accused in the FIR, even according to the prosecution, this petitioner is only instigated the other accused to commit the offence and apart from that there is no allegation as against the petitioner, no one was injured, no previous case against the petitioner and considering all other 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, Valliyoor, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, 3/6

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 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.

(P D B J) 22.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.

2.The Inspector of Police, Panakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

4/6

(Crime No.493 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7953 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026 6/6