CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.13020 of 2026 1.Sembukutti 2.Thillairaj 3.Ganesh 4.Isakkimuthu ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.355 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.Sathyachidambaram For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.355/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.355 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that due to pathway dispute, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, intimidated him and attempted to attack him. Fearing over the same, the defacto complainant ran over to his brother's house to save himself. However, the petitioners went there, shouted and damaged the windshield of the house and created fear in the mind of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint has been registered. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would also submit that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for State (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that the offences committed by the accused are grave in nature and the investigation is still pending. He would further submit that the first petitioner is having two previous cases, the second petitioner is having five previous cases and the fourth petitioner is having four previous cases against them. As far as the third petitioner is concerned, he would submit that no previous case is pending against him. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 6. I have also gone through the FIR and the list of previous cases against the petitioners, wherein, it is stated that two previous cases are pending against the first petitioner, out of which, one case is registered for the offence under Section 160 of IPC, which is also disposed and the other case is not taken on file. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, there are five previous cases, out of which, one case is disposed and four cases are pending trial. Insofar as the fourth petitioner is concerned, there are four previous cases, out of which, one case is registered for the offence under Section 151 of Cr.P.C, one case is disposed and the other two cases are pending against him. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the previous antecedents and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. However, as far as petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are concerned, 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 petitioners 1, 3 and 4, subject to the following conditions: 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 [a] Accordingly, the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, on condition that the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall cooperate with the investigation. [d] the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not tamper with 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 03.07.2026 Lm TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.13020 of 2026 K.RAJASEKAR,J. Lm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13020 of 2026 Date : 03/07/2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis