Vasantha Kumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Thirunagar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Vasantha Kumar 2.Kamalapandy

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station Madurai.

(Crime No. 148 of 2026)

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 148 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No. 148 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2026, due to previous enmity between the accused and the defacto complainant, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties and the petitioners abused him in filthy language and attacked each other. 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. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit 2/7

that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No. 148 of 2026. He would further submit that during pendency of this petition, the second petitioner was remanded and thereby, no scope for granting anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. He would further submit that the first petitioner has no previous case and injured was discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

6. Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) that the second petitioner was remanded during pendency of this petition, this petition is dismissed as against the second petitioner. Further, considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the first petitioner, and considering the facts that injured was discharged from the hospital and 3/7

the first petitioner has no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate-VI, Madurai, on condition that the first 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 first petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

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

[d] the first petitioner shall not abscond either during 4/7

investigation or trial.

[e] the first petitioner 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 first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first 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.

7. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, this petition is allowed and insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed.

(P D B J) 18.06.2026 apd 5/7

To 1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate-VI, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10828 of 2026 Date : 18.06.2026 7/7