← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10381/2026granted

Murugaperumal v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pathamadai

2026-06-08Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Murugaperumal

2. Senthilvel ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Pathamadai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No. 202 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 202 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioners : S.Sathyachidambaram, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the 1/6

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 118(1) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.202 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant married the sister of the petitioners herein. Due to difference of opinion, the wife of the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home and started to living with her parents. In such circumstances, on 01.05.2026, the defacto complainant went to the house of the petitioners and at that time, there was wordy quarrel arose between the parties and the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that originally the defacto complainant in a drunken mode, attacked the petitioner and in this regard, the first petitioner lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant and the injured was 2/6

discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioners abused and attacked the defacto complainant and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that it is a case and counter case and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners.

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 petitioners, and there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and the relationship between the parties and it is a case and counter case and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, 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 concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners 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 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 4/6

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]. [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 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Pathamadai Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL,J dss

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10381 of 2026 Date : 08/06/2026 6/6