Arumugam v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Arumugam 2.Kannayee 3.Manimegalai
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai.
(Crime No. 208 of 2025 )
2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Inspector of Police CBCID Madurai.
(Crime No.4 of 2026)
...Respondents/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vikraman Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/7
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 191(2), 49, 109(1) and 103(1) of B.N.S., 2023, in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant's husband died 3 years back and they have 2 sons, who are aged 7 years and 5 years. In these circumstances, the de-facto-complainant and deceased Sathis Kumar loved each other and it was objected by the defacto-complainant's family members. Hence, the deceased lodged complaint before the police. Hence, on 16.08.2025, the respondent conducted an enquiry. After the enquiry, at about 10.30 PM, the defactocomplainant and deceased returned to Trichy by bike. When they were going in Ayyapatti bridge, the accused persons came in a car and they 2/7
dashed the de-facto-complainant and the deceased. Hence, the said Sathis kumar died in the said incident. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the first petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 191(2), 49, 109(1) and 103(1) of B.N.S., 2023, in Crime No.4 of 2026. He would further submit that investigation is completed and only the lab report is awaited. He would further submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 have no previous case. He would further submit that the offences are grave in 3/7
nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners 2 and 3, and considering the facts that the investigaion is already completed and the lab report is only awaited and co-accused was also granted anticipatory bail and no previous case is pending against the petitioners 2 and 3 and though the FIR has been registered on 17.08.2025, so far the respondents have not take any steps to secure the accused, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial 4/7
Magistrate, Melur, on condition that the petitioners 2 and 3 shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the second respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[c] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioners 2 and 3 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 2 and 3 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 2 and 3 released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble 5/7
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) 10.06.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai.
3. The Inspector of Police CBCID Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8991 of 2026 Date : 10.06.2026 7/7