P.Rajendran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 28.08.2025 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD)Nos.14247 and 14248 of 2025

1. P.Rajendran 2.B.Rajasekaran 3.P.Karunakaran ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.2 to 4 in CRL OP(MD)Nos.14247 of 2025 S.Varatharajan ... Petitioners / Accused No1 in CRL OP(MD)Nos.14248 of 2025 Vs State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Kamesh For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate(Crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 BNSS COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.179 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 335, 318(4), 118(1) and 351(2) of BNS Act comparing to Sections 464, 420, 324 and 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.179 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the first accused are siblings. Their father, now deceased, owned a rice mill located in Sanarpatti Village, Dindigul District. After the demise of their father, a dispute arose between the defacto complainant and the first accused regarding the ownership and control of the said rice mill. The first accused along with other accused persons has attacked the defacto complainant. Hence the case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. A counter case was also registered against the defacto complainant on the complaint given by the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent 2/6

Police submits that the defacto complainant and the first petitioner are brothers. A dispute arose between them with regard to the management of the rice mill. On the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant was attacked by the accused persons and he sustained head injuries. The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14247 of 2025 are Accused Nos.2 to 4 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14248 of 2025 is the Accused No.1.

5. Since both the applications are filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.179 of 2025, these applications are taken up together and disposed by this Court by a common order.

6. It is seen that it is a dispute between the siblings over the management of a rice mill after the demise of their father. A partition deed was executed on 23.01.2023 allotting 50% of share in the rice mill to the first accused and the defacto complainant. Since the defacto complainant has not provided the share to the first accused, a panchayat was conducted during the year 2024 and a compromise was also arrived between them at the instance of Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 who are the relatives and friend. Eventhough a compromise deed was executed, the defacto complainant has not complied with the same and the first accused has filed a civil 3/6

suit before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.57 of 2024. The defacto complainant has also entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement. At this juncture, on 23.03.2024, the defacto complainant has filed this complaint.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3, Dindigul on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Dindigul and on further conditions that: i. The petitioners and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address; ii. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of fifteen days. He has to co-operate for the investigation.

iii. The petitioners shall not misuse the liberty granted to them by 4/6

indulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall be available for the trial as well.

iv. On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioners, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

sd/- 28/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /09/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

pnn TO 1 The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Dindigul.

2 The Inspector of Police, Shanarpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14247 of 2025 Date :28/08/2025 NM/08.09.2025/ 6P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6