Karthikeyan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sivagangai Taluk
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Karthikeyan
2. Padmini ... Petitioners/Accused No.1&4 Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai.
Crime No.216/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.216/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioners : A.M. Senthil Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.K.Sivabalan for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy 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), 74, 115(2), 357(2) & 303(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of ?Harassment of Women Act, 1998, in Crime No.241 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.
The case of the prosecution is that on the petitioners are said to have abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, who is the Village Administrative Officer and criminally intimidated her by using hands with an intention to outrage her modesty and committed the theft of her cell phone. 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 no pervious case is pending against the petitioners and the injured was treated as out patient. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, 2/6
who is the Village Administrative Officer and criminally intimidated her by using hands with an intention to outrage her modesty and committed the theft of her cell phone and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that no pervious case is pending against the petitioner and the injured was treated as out patient.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Intervener would submit that the offence is grave in nature and both the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant in a public place and also snatched a cell phone of the defacto complainant and the same was not yet recovered. Hence, he strongly 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 petitioners, and there is a dispute between the parties and no pervious case is pending against the petitioners and the injured was treated as out patient, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail 3/6
to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [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, Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai, 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. 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 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) 11.06.2026 2/2 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10683 of 2026 Date : 11/06/2026 6/6