Gnanasigamani v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Gnanasigamani ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Puthukadai, Kanyakumari District.
Cr.No.133 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.133 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : J.Jeevin, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 296(b), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.133 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to pathway dispute, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened the defacto complainant 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 no one sustained injury in this occurrence and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that due to pathway dispute, the petitioner abused the defacto 2/6
complainant in filthy language and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that no one has sustained injury in this case and no previous case is pending against 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 is a pathway dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and no one sustained injury in this occurrence and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, 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.II, Kuzhithurai, 3/6
Kanyakumari District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the 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.
4/6
27.04.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Puthukadai, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J DSS
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8276 of 2026 Date : 27/04/2026 6/6