Ramar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Seithur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9435 of 2026 Ramar ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Seithur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.166 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 166 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 324 and 304 of BNS, in Crime No.166 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that in order to worshipping the God there is some dispute arisen between the parties. Due to which the petitioner break open the lock and taken away the jewels, which was kept at the temple. Hence, the complaint.

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. There is some dispute between the parties regarding administration of the temple. Due to which already peace committee meeting was also held by the Tahsildar. The temple building is a small building and no one has broken the same. In order to spoil the temple administration he has filed this complaint. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. There is a dispute between the parties in worshiping the God. In which the petitioner break open the door and taken away the jewels. The petitioner is the named accused. The petitioner has three previous cases. Out of which one is similar in nature. He vehemently opposed 2/5

the grant of anticipatory bail to 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, there is dispute between the parties in respect of administration of the temple and though the petitioner case three previous cases, in all those cases he was granted bail, 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, Rajapalayam, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

3/5

[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) 02.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Seithur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.166 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9435 of 2026 Date : 02.06.2026 5/5