Pandi @ Pandi Kouthan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

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. 9877 of 2026 1.Pandi @ Pandi Kouthan 2..Bhuvaneswari ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Puthukkottai District.

(Crime No.286 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.U.Parivendan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 286 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 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 126 and Section 351(3) 1/6

and 109 of BNS, in Crime No.286 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Ragavan approached the 1st petitioner by giving some amount in order to purchase an old model bike. Despite receiving the amount, he did not give the bike to him. Hence, he called the defacto complainant to mediate this matter. While mediation, the petitioners along with other accused chased the defacto complainant in order to attack by using deadly weapon. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The 1st petitioner doing a business dealing with sales of second hand two wheelers. The defacto complainant also doing the same business. Due to business motive, the defacto complainant lodged the present criminal complaint. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the 2/6

offences are grave in nature. There is a dispute between the parties with regard to the sales of two wheeler. In which, the 1st petitioner along with other accused chased the defacto complainant. But, no one sustained injury in this case. The petitioners have no previous case. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that due to previous dispute in respect of sales of vehicle, the petitioners chased the defacto complainant with aruval and attempted to commit murder. But, the defacto complainant narrowly escaped from the petitioners and the offences are grave in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, nobody was injured in this case, there is no previous case against the petitioners, there is a previous dispute between the parties in respect of sale of vehicle, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 3/6

petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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, Aranthangi, Puthukkottai District and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

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

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners 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 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. 4/6

[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, Aranthangi, Puthukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Puthukkottai District.

(Crime No.286 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9877 of 2026 Date : 02.06.2026 6/6