Petichiyapparajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thoothukudi South
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Petichiyapparaja ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station , Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No. 600 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 600 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Sundarapandian, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.600 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant purchased a salt pan from the petitioner and also in possession and enjoyment for the past 2 years. In such circumstances, the petitioner along with other accused trespassed into the salt pan of the defacto complainant and started to scooping up the salt present there. When the same was questioned, they abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences and caused damage to the car of the defacto complainant with a spade. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is a dispute with regard to salt pan and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case.
5. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that there is a dispute in respect of salt pan and already entire money was settled to the petitioner for the salt pan. However, the petitioner made disturbance with the possession and enjoyment of the defacto complainant and caused damage to his car and thereby, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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 petitioner, and there is a dispute between the parties in respect of salt pan business and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 3/6
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 Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Thoothukudi, 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 4 weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[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 4/6
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.
05.06.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Thoothukudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station , Thoothukudi District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
P. DHANABAL,J dss 5/6
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10309 of 2026 Date : 05/06/2026 6/6