Paulraj 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 Paulraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By, The Sub Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
Cr.No.515 of 2025.
... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.515 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : S.Selva Kumar, 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 offence punishable under Section 309(6) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.515 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2025, when the defacto complainant, who is the North Indian was walking on the road, the the accused persons attacked him with an iron rod and snatched a cellphone valued at about Rs.20,000/- and fled away the scene of occurrence through bike. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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 already the co-accused was arrested and released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit 2/6
that the petitioner snatched a cell phone from the defacto complainant and the petitioner has 10 previous cases. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that already the co-accused was arrested and released on bail.
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 the property involved in this case and already the co-accused was arrested and released on bail and though the petitioner has 10 previous cases, all the cases are not a similar kind of offences and in those cases, he was granted bail and anticipatory 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 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 3/6
learned Judicial Magistrate Radhapuram, 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 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 Radhapuram.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli 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.8298 of 2026 Date : 27/04/2026 6/6