Ayyanar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2636 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2636 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Ayyanar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 20 May, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                    CRL OP(MD). No.9653 of 2026


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              Dated : 20/05/2026

                                                   CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                          CRL OP(MD). No.9653 of 2026
                     1. Ayyanar
                     2. Ramar
                     3. Jeyaprakash @ Jeyaprakasan
                     4. Ramesh
                     5. Boominathan
                     6. Pandiyarajan
                     7. Karankumar
                     8. Rakku
                     9. Muthuirulayee
                     10. Vijaya
                     11. Chithra
                     12. Selvaraj                     ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 12


                                                      Vs


                     State of Tamilnadu Rep by,
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Thiruppuvanam Police Station,


                     1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           CRL OP(MD). No.9653 of 2026


                     Sivagangai District.
                     Crime No. 239 of 2026.                    ... Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER :-

                         For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 239 of 2026 on the file of
                     the respondent Police.


                       For Petitioners : M/s.D.Thirumoorthy,
                                 Advocate.
                       For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James,
                                 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)



                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3),

296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 74 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.239 of

2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the

defacto complainant are the close relatives. Due to previous enmity, on

07.05.2026, at about 06.30 a.m., the petitioners are said to have abused

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the defacto complainant in filthy language and assaulted him, his father,

his mother and one Muneeswaran and caused blood injuries to all and

threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, a case has been

registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this

petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated

in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits

that due to previous enmity between the defacto complainant and the

petitioners, the alleged occurrence was happened and the injured are still

in hospital. Hence, he strongly opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners 8 to 11 are women and there is no specific

overtact as against them.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.Since the injured are still in hospital, this Court is not inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 to 7 & 12. Hence, this petition

is dismissed as against the petitioners 1 to 7 & 12.

8. However, considering the facts that the petitioners 8 to 11 are

women and there is no specific overt act as against them, I am inclined to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 8 to 11 with certain conditions.

9.Accordingly, the petitioners 8 to 11 are ordered to be released on

bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the

petitioners 8 to 11 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, Thiruppuvanam, within a

period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made

ready and on further conditions that:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[a] the petitioners 8 to 11 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 heir identity;

[b] the petitioners 8 to 11 shall report before the

respondent police as and when required for

interrogation;

[c] the petitioners 8 to 11 shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners 8 to 11 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners 8 to 11 shall not tamper with

evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take

appropriate action against the petitioners 8 to 11 in

accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed

and the petitioners 8 to 11 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SCW 5560].