Judgment · High Court

CRL OP(MD). No.4666 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 06.03.2026PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNANCRL OP(MD)No.4666 of 20261.Tamilarasan2.Nithya3.Suresh4.Rajeswari5.Chinnaiyan6.Ayyanar7.Jeyasuriyan @ Surya8.Sankar @ Samiyar9.Arumugam10.V.Veeranathan11.Senthil Kumar12.Balasubramaniam13.Saraswathi... Petitioners / AccusedRank Not Known VersusThe State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.113 of 2026)... Respondent / Complainant1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.4666 of 2026PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.113 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police or on their appearance. For Petitioners: Mr.S.Nirmal Kumar For Respondent: Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public ProsecutorFor Intervener: Mr.B.VigneshORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.113 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126, 189, 109, 351 and 300 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is presently serving as the Secretary of an association namely Madurai Mutharaiyar Pothunala Sangam, which has been functioning smoothly. While so, it is alleged that the petitioners did not allow the defacto complainant and his relatives to participate in the worship of Lord Kallalagar in the association hall for Swami Dharshan. It is further 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.4666 of 2026alleged that the petitioners abused them using filthy language and assaulted them, thereby causing mental stress to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police through post on 14.05.2025, which was not acted upon. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a complaint by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. Pursuant to the direction issued by the said Court, the respondent police registered the present case in Crime No.113 of 2026 for the above allegations.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that a false case has been registered against the petitioners due to a dispute between the management and the petitioners, and that the offence under Section 351 of the BNS is not made out. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.4666 of 20264. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the accused persons attempted to illegally take over the management of the said Sangam. He further submitted that no one sustained any injury in the said occurrence. Hence, he objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by reiterating the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no one was injured, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.