K Rasu v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR K.Rasu ... Petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tenkasi District. Crime No.221/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.221/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : Veerapandi P, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.Vetrivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.221 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on

03.06.2026, the petitioner joining hands with the other accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked the defacto complainant with bare hands and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has no previous antecedent and the co-accused were already released on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No. 11295 of 2026 on 16.06.2026. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, submitted that the investigation is at preliminary stage. He would further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has no previous antecedent and the co-accused were already released on anticipatory bail by this Court. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the material available on records.

6.Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, and also considering the facts that there is a dispute due to the wordy quarrel arose between the parties and the injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has no previous antecedent and the co-accused were already released on anticipatory bail by this Court, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily 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.

30.06.2026 dss To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tenkasi District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12776 of 2026 Date : 30/06/2026