Allowed

G. K. Gnanavel v. State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Feb 2026CRL OP/3900/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and other BNS sections. The bail was subject to conditions including daily reporting, non-interference, and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail if arrested on a bond of Rs.15,000 with two sureties each for a like sum subject to conditions of daily reporting non-interference and cooperation with investigation.

G. K. Gnanavel Vs State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

G. K. Gnanavel

..Petitioner(s)

State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Ambur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District. (Crime.No.29/2026)

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime.No.29/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.E Kannadasan For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hand of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS Act 2023 read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment

¶16

of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.29 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The allegations against the petitioner is that due to previous enmity, on

¶18

the date of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused, abused the

¶19

Page1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶22

defacto complaint in filthy language, assaulted the him with wooden log, and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. He further submitted that the petitioner has lodged a criminal complaint against the defacto complainant in Crime No.28 of 2026 for the offences under Section 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS 2023 and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner , and the injured was discharged from hospital. She further submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner has

¶26

no prior criminal record, the injured was discharged from hospital and the

¶27

Page2 of 6

¶28

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

¶29

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶30

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on hsi appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur o n 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 that:

¶32

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30

¶33

am., for a period two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶34

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶35

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶36

[d] 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

¶37

Page3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶40

the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as

¶41

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala

¶42

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶43

[e] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under

¶44

Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

¶45

17-02-2026

¶46

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶47

JAI

¶48

¶49

The Sub Inspector of Police, Ambur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District.

¶50

The Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.

¶51

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶52

__________ Page4 of 6

¶53

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

¶54

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶55

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶56

JAI

¶57

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶58

17-02-2026

¶59

__________ Page5 of 6

¶60

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

¶61

CRL OP No. 3900 of 2026

¶62

__________ Page6 of 6

¶63

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

G. K. Gnanavel v. State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. K. Gnanavel v. State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moshin Kha Yusuf Kha Pathan @ Pathan Moshim Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep by

M.Selvaraj Vs The State Rep. by

S.Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police

Eshwari Vs State Rep by

R.Saranya Vs State, represented by

Sivakumar Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police