Vijay @ Vijayan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.05.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.Vijay @ Vijayan, S/o.Kannan 2.Nithish @ Pandeeswaran, S/o.Murugan 3.Veerapandi, S/o.Palpandi 4.Aathi Jegadeesh, S/o.Selvam 5.Nallathambi, S/o.Marimuthu 6.Achamputhu @ Pooranakumar, S/o.Loganathan 7.Sundar @ Sundaramahalingam, S/o.Selvam ... Petitioners/A2, A6 to A8, A11 to A13 Vs.
1/7
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District.
(Crime No.300 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.Sarathkumar.G, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.I.Anthony Prabu, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.300 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A2, A6 to A8, A11 to A13, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002, read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.300 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2/7
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.04.2026 at about 9.00 p.m., while the de-facto complainant, along with his wife and his brother accompanied by his wife, went to a temple, the petitioners, along with other accused persons, assembled near the temple, teased the wife of the de-facto complainant and his brother's wife by passing vulgar comments, thereby outraging their modesty. When this was questioned by the defacto complainant and his family members, the accused persons assaulted them and damaged their mobile phones. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are totally thirteen accused persons in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A2, A6 to 3/7
A8, A11 to A13. He further submitted that the accused Nos.1, 3, 4, and 8 have been arrested. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the injured has been undergoing treatment in a private hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that some of the accused have already been arrested, and that the petitioners are ready to deposit a certain amount to the credit of the crime number, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioners 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, Uthamapalayam, Theni 4/7
District, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy was made ready and on further conditions that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each to the credit of Crime No.300 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. Upon such deposit, the learned Magistrate shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioners. Further, the defacto complainant/victim is at liberty to withdraw the said amount by filing an appropriate application before the trial Court;
[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
5/7
[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 is 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 of BNS.
(S S Y J) 06.05.2026 mkn 6/7
S.SRIMATHY, J.
mkn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Chinnamanur Police Station, Theni District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN 06.05.2026 7/7