Senthil Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police, East
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Senthil Kumar
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, East Police Station - Thanjavur Thanjavur.
(Crime No. 230 of 2026)
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ponmanaselvan Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.I.Murugesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Punniyamoorthy PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.230 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 329(3), 324(4), 303(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No. 230 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous dispute regarding property, on 14.06.2026 at about 11.00 hrs, the petitioner and other accused barged the defacto complainant, assulted her, stolen her belongings worth about Rs.30,000/- and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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. He further submitted that coaccused was arrested and released on bail and the petitioner has three previous cases, out of which two cases were disposed of. He is ready to 2/7
cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 329(3), 324(4), 303(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No. 230 of 2026. He confirmed that co-accused was arrested and released on bail and the petitioner has three previous cases, out of which two cases were disposed of. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that huge valued property has been damaged and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will indulge in similar kind of offences. 3/7
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that co-accused was arrested and released on bail and the petitioner has three previous cases, out of which two cases are disposed of and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, 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/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur, 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 Judicial Magistrate 4/7
concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur, to the credit of the Crime No. 230 of 2026, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.
[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [d] the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. [e] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[f] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[g] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [h] 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 5/7
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].
[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
8. The disbursement of the above said amount directed to be deposited shall be decided by trial Court at the time of finalising the case. 29.06.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police, East Police Station - Thanjavur Thanjavur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
K.RAJASEKAR, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12722 of 2026 Date : 29.06.2026 7/7