V Vijay v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL V.Vijay
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy District (Crime No.432 of 2022)
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veerapandiselvaraj For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.432 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 147,120(B),302,201 and 34 of IPC in Crime No.432 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The de-facto complainant is the wife of the deceased Nagaraj. The case of the prosecution is that the since the deceased had been missing from 16.12.2022, the de-facto complainant lodged a man missing complaint before the respondent police. Thereafter, one Samugamoorthy was arrested in connection with Crime No.51 of 2025. During the course of investigation, the said Shamugamoorthy confessed about the death of Nagaraj stating that the deceased Nagaraj had sexually harassed a woman named Vanitha, abused her, and had intercourse with her. He also allegedly threatened to upload a videograph of the incident on the internet if she did not co-operate for further intercourse. In October 2022, Vanitha reported the sexual abuse to her brother Aravind and to Shanmugamoorthy. Subsequently, on 16.12.2022, Aravind and Shanmugamoorthy, along with other accused persons, murdered Nagaraj by drowning him in the Cauvery river and hide his body. Hence, the case.
2/6
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime. He would further submit that the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are totally five accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A5. He further submitted that investigation has been completed and final report has been filed before the concerned Court, however, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offences and also considering the fact that investigation has been completed and final report has been filed and considering the fact that the name of the petitioner is not added in the First Information Report and only based on the confession given by the co-accused this petitioner has been 3/6
implicated as an accused and the considering the fact that co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai on condition that the petitioner shall 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 Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai , 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.
4/6
[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) 08.06.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J aav
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9938 of 2026 Date : 08.06.2026 6/6