Mohamed Nizath v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Atchanpudur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.21675 of 2025

1. Mohamed Nizath

2. Satham Hussain

3. Shajahan ... Petitioners Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Atchanpudur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.305 of 2025) ... Respondent (Amended vide order dated 28.11.2025, in CRL MP(MD)No.18946 of 2025 in CRL OP(MD)No.21675 of 2025) For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.305 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

(Amended vide order dated 28.11.2025, in CRL MP(MD)No.18946 of 2025 in CRL OP(MD)No.21675 of 2025) ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2) of BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.305 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the sons of the 3rd petitioner. The local panchayat has done the work of laying the channel just adjoining to their houses. Opposing the same, the defacto complainant has resisted the worker from laying the water channel in front of his house.

Because according to him, while laying the same, the steps available in front of his house would be damaged. In spite of such objection, the local panchayat with the assistance of the police, has done the work and completed the same. The defacto complainant was under the impression that it is the petitioners who might have called the police for enabling the said work to be taken place. On such premise, when he was there, on 20.11.2025, one Syed Majith had quarreled with the petitioners at about 5.00 p.m.. On the next day i.e., on 22.11.2025 at 5.00 p.m.

assaulted him who is the son-in-law of the defacto complainant. As a result of which, he sustained injuries. In that melee, the daughter of the defacto complainant was made to fall on the surface and she had got certain injuries. Immediately they rushed to the hospital and accordingly, the case in hand came to the knowledge of the respondent police. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature. Further, it is a case and case in counter and also the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

5.Considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

3/6

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai, Tenkasi District, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 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 4/6

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

28.11.2025 TMG (2/2) TO

1. Judicial Magistrate, Shencottai Tenkasi District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Atchanpudur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J TMG

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21675 of 2025 Date : 28.11.2025 (2/2) 6/6