Disposed

Sethupathy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police

Madras HC17 Apr 2026CRL OP(MD)/7544/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four accused in an assault case arising from a family civil dispute sought anticipatory bail. Noting the injured had been discharged, no previous cases against them and material investigation largely complete, the court granted anticipatory bail on conditions including weekly reporting for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all four petitioners on bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties each and reporting/appearance conditions.

Sethupathy Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 17.04.2026

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶7

1.Sethupathy 2.Kannan 3.Marimuthu 4.Sagunthala ...petitioners/A1 to A4

¶8

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mukkulam Police Station Virudhunagar District. (Crime No. 78 of 2026)

¶10

...Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For petitioners :Mr.PNSSM.Ammaar Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi

¶12

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶13

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 78 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners/A1 to A4, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(1), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and

¶19

Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.78 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that due to

¶21

civil dispute between the family members of the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in

¶22

filthy language and attacked her and caused injuries and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶24

would submit that the petitioners are innocent

¶25

2/8

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶28

persons and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that there was a civil dispute pending between the parties. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

¶30

Side) fairly submits that the petitioners has no previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offence are grave in nature. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

Considering the rival submissions on

¶33

either side and the nature of offences charged

¶34

3/8

¶35

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

¶36

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶37

against the petitioners and there was a civil dispute pending between the parties and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and the material part of the

¶38

investigation might have been completed and also considering the fact that the petitioners has no previous cases, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are

¶40

ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District, and on further conditions that:

¶41

[b] the petitioners shall appear

¶42

4/8

¶43

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

¶44

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶45

before the respondent Police once in a

¶46

week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30

¶47

a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶48

[c] the petitioners shall not commit

¶49

any offences of similar nature.

¶50

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond

¶51

either during investigation or trial.

¶52

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper

¶53

with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶54

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid

¶55

conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the

¶56

5/8

¶57

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

¶58

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026

¶59

petitioners 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 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶60

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 17.04.2026

vsg

6/8

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

¶65

CRL OP(MD). No. 7544 of 2026