Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S SRIMATHY
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 269, 296(b), 351(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial…
Judgment
Cause title
CRL OP(MD). No.22417 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 08.12.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYCRL OP(MD)No.22417 of 20251.Muthumariappan @ Thavalavayan2.Sakthivel ... Petitioners
/A2 & A4 VersusThe State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Keelarajakularaman Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.277 of 2025)... Respondent
/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.R.Jagadeeshwaran For Respondent: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.277 of 2025 on the file of the 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.22417 of 2025respondent police.
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2025, at about 2.15 p.m., while the defacto complainant was at Narayanasamy Godown, the accused persons allegedly abused him in filthy language, assaulted him with their hands and an iron rod causing injuries, and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel appearing 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 A1 was granted bail and A3 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.22417 of 20254. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the first petitioner has four previous cases and the second petitioner has one previous case against him. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that A1 has already been granted bail and A3 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.22417 of 2025(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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the first petitioner alone shall report before the Dean of Virudhunagar Government Hospital daily at 10.30 a.m., and shall do social service at the said hospital till 4.00 p.m., for a period of two weeks.
Thereafter, the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily evening at 6.00 p.m., until further orders. The second petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. They have to co-operate for the investigation; (c) the petitioners shall not tamper with 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 petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.22417 of 2025down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS 2023.
(S S Y J) 08.12.2025palTo1. The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Keelarajakularaman Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy ToThe Dean, Government Hospital, Virudhunagar District. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.22417 of 2025S.SRIMATHY,J. palORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.22417 of 2025 Date : 08.12.20256/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 269, 296(b), 351(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.