Selvesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thiruvonam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10862 of 2026 Selvesh

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvonam Police Station, Thanjavur District.

(Crime No.103 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Arif Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 103 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.04.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 121(1), 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.103 of 2026 on the file of the 1/6

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2026, while polling was in progress at the Panchayat Union Primary School Booth, in Pathupulividuthi Village, the petitioner created a disturbance insisting that he should be appointed as a booth agent. When the police attempted to prevent the issue, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the police personnel. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The complaint is exaggerated, politically motivated and have been made with an ulterior motive. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. During the election time, there was a wordy quarrel arose in the election booth. At that time the petitioner attacked the police officials. The injured was discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is a history sheeted person. He is having five previous cases, not similar in nature. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to 2/6

the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the injured was discharged from the hospital, though the prosecution has stated that the petitioner is a history sheeted person and has five previous cases, they are not similar in nature and in all those cases, he was already granted bail and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days until further orders:

3/6

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [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 BNS.

(P D B J) 22.06.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvonam Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.103 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Trichy. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10862 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 6/6