Allowed

Sethupathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, a.Mukkulam

Madras HC27 Apr 2026CRL OP(MD)/8210/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case arising from a civil dispute in which they allegedly abused and attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her. Noting the injured was discharged and no previous cases pending, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including bonds, weekly police reporting for four weeks, and no tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, weekly reporting for four weeks, and standard conduct conditions.

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8210 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 27/04/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.8210 of 2026

¶7

Sethupathi 2. Samayan 3. Muthukumar 4. Chinnaponnu 5. Pappathi ... Petitioners/Accused No. 1to5

¶8

¶9

State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District. Crime No. 79 of 2026. ... Respondent/Claimanant

¶10

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 79 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : S. Malaikani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

CRL OP(MD). No.8210 of 2026

¶14

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.79 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, on 31.03.2026 at about 06.00 p.m, the petitioners and other accused are said to have abused the defacto complainant and attacked her and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous cases is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit

¶18

2/6

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.8210 of 2026

¶21

that due to civil dispute, the petitioners and other accused are said to have abused the defacto complainant and attacked her and threatened her with dire consequences and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that the injured was discharge from the hospital and the petitioners have no previous case.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature

¶24

of offences charged against the petitioners, and there is a civil dispute between the parties and the injured was discharged from the hospital and no previous cases is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶25

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.8210 of 2026

¶29

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,

¶30

Tiruchuli , and on further conditions that:

¶31

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶35

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the 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].

¶36

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP(MD). No.8210 of 2026

¶40

be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

¶41

(P D B J) 27.04.2026