K Mukesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19.09.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.15724 of 2025

1. K.Mukesh

2. Akil Kumar ... Petitioners Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District (Crime No.481 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.J. Jeevin For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.481 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER: The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioners/A1 and A2 who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 296(b), 118(1), 118(2), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.481 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.09.2025 at about 11.30 a.m., when the defacto complainant was driving his vehicle on the way to home, A1 and A2 intercepted the vehicle and started quarrelling with the defacto complainant and when the same was questioned A1 and A2 attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. Hence the case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw the petition as regards the second petitioner and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that when the defacto complainant was driving his 2/6

vehicle on the way to home, A1 and A2 intercepted the vehicle and started quarrelling with the defacto complainant and when the same was questioned A1 and A2 attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries , thereby he would oppose for grant of anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner alone with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the first petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

[b]the first petitioner shall stay at Virudhachalam and report before the Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Town Police daily at 10.30a.m., until further orders.

[d]the first petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

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

[f]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner is 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 of BNS.

4/6

7. As regards the second petitioner this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

19.09.2025 aav TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District 2.The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15724 of 2025 Date : 19.09.2025 6/6