High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajith Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 MAD CK 1723

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.Srimathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 131, 269, 296(b), 351(3) · Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention Of Destruction And Loss) Act, 1982 — Section 3(1) · Tamil Nadu Prohibition Of Harassment Of Women Act, 1998 — Section 4
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 2258 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 448 words

S.Srimathy, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 131, 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS, Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No.37 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner came to the house of the defacto complainant's son-in-law and asked about him to his mother and assaulted the mother of son-in-law with hands and caused injuries. Hence, the case.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 17.01.2026. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has one previous case. He further submitted the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and it is a case and case in counter case. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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, Nanguneri, and on further conditions that :-

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

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

[e] 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 the petitioner is 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].

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.