Muruganantham v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12126 of 2026 Muruganantham ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.44 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganeshprabu 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. 44 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(2) and 303(2) of BNS, in Crime No.44 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory 1/6

bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2026 at 01.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant was working in her agricultural land, the accused persons entered into their land and picked up quarrel with her and tied her and they went to the home. Again at 05.00 p.m., they entered into the house of the defacto complainant by breaking open the door and damaged the kitchen utensils and also stolen Rs.1,00,000/- which was kept in a saree. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. There is previous dispute between the parties. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. There is previous land dispute between the parties. Due to which the petitioner along with other accused picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant and stolen Rs.1 lakhs from her house. The petitioner has 2/6

no previous case pending against him. Investigation is still pending. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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 petitioner, there is a dispute between the parties in respect of the land, the occurrence was happened on 15.01.2026, but the FIR has been registered on 29.01.2026 belatedly, by this time most of the investigation might to have been completed, the petitioner has no previous case, and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District, on condition that the 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 Magistrate 3/6

concerned and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation: [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

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

[e] the 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 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 589 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 24.06.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham, Dindigul District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12126 of 2026 Date : 24.06.2026 6/6