Madhavan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Srivilliputhur Town
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Madhavan 2.Ajithsingh @ Ajith Kumar
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar.
(Crime No. 270 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Balamuruganantham 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. 270 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 294(b), 323, 448, 506(2) of IPC Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harasment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No. 270 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are known each other and based on the advice of the petitioners, the defacto complainant gave Rs.29,000/- as debt by pledging her gold chain and thereafter, when the defacto complainant asked to return the money, A1 refused and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language. 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 2/7
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 448, 506(2) of IPC Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harasment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No. 270 of 2026. He would further submit that the first petitioner has four previous case and the second petitioner has no previous case. 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 rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that there is a money dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant and even according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2023; however, FIR has been registered 3/7
only in the year 2026 and no any specific overt-act attributed as against these petitioners and though the first petitioner has four previous cases, in all cases, bail was granted to him and the second petitioner has no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail 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, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar, 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, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when 4/7
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 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) 18.06.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11517 of 2026 Date : 18.06.2026 7/7