SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.Kumarappan, J
N.Muthamilselvan – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Keelaiyur Police Station, Nagapattinam District. – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crime No.34 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Vijendran
For the Respondents:Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

The absence of prior offenses against petitioners and co-accused's bail status justified anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Headnote:This judgment considers the provisions under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning anticipatory bail. The petitioners sought bail due to apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.34 of 2026, alleging they were falsely implicated. The Court took into account no previous cases pending against the petitioners and the co-accused's bail status, resulting in the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court’s rulings highlight the lack of adverse antecedents against the petitioners and established adequate conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' apprehension of arrest and allegations (Para 1 , 2)
2. nature of allegations and defense arguments (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's inclination to grant bail based on circumstances (Para 5)
4. conditions under which bail is granted (Para 6)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections

191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.34 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, due to love affair, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged occurrence arose out of a group clash in the village due to a dispute between two individuals in relation to a woman. According to him, the petitioners had no role in the alleged incident and have been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners and that the first accused has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and also considering that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners and that the co-accused has already been granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Keelvelur, Nagapattinam District, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'.

The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall stay at Trichy and report before the Kottai Police Station, No.56, Kiladhar Street, Singarathope, Tharanallur, Tiruchirappalli, everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top