Kalai Selvaraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

1. Kalai Selvaraj

2. Suresh

3. Suresh Kumar

4. Govindhan

5. Pugalendhi . ..Petitioners/ Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

(Crime No.330 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.S.Sivaram PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/5

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 303(2) (NP) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, in Crime No.330 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail,

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused persons had trespassed into the Aashram of the defacto complainant and damaged the Aashram Properties and also assaulted the employee of the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated them. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners 2/5

are not present at the scene of the occurrence, and they were falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners have involved in very serious offence and the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that co-accused anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court in Crl.OP(MD).No.19889 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners along with other accused persons had attacked the defacto complainant and others, due to which, they sustained injuries. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3/5

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioners have involved in very serious offence and the investigation is at initial stage. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 13.11.2025 msrm To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District.

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

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20014 of 2025 13.11.2025 (1/2) 5/5