Ramu vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of … on 21 May, 2026

Madras High Court

Ramu vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of … on 21 May, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                           CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026




                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                                  Date : 21.05.2026

                                                      PRESENT

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026


                     Ramu                                         ...Petitioner/Accused
                                                       Vs

                     State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Thirumayam Police Station,
                     Thirumayam
                     Pudukottai.
                     (Crime No. 183 of 2025 )                               ...Respondent


                                      For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance
                                                     Advocate.
                                      For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                           PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

                     PRAYER :-


                     1/6




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026


                        For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 183 of 2025 on the file of the
                     respondent police.

                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,

466, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No. 183 of 2025 on the file of

the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner forged the

SPONSORED

insurance policy of the vehicle owned by the petitioner as if the

insurance took in TATA AIG General Insurance Company, where

the defacto complainant is working. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case

and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he

prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would

submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto

complainant, a case has been registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in

Crime No. 183 of 2025. He would further submit that the

investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and

hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and

the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and

considering the facts that there is no specific overt-act as against

the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026

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 learned Judicial Magistrate,

Thirumayam, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the

respondent police, on the first day of every English

Calender month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of

similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance

with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026

petitioner 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].

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

can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(R V J)
21.05.2026
apd

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirumayam Police Station,
Thirumayam
Pudukottai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 9634 of 2026

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J

apd

ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No. 9634 of 2026

Date : 21.05.2026

6/6

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