Naveen Kumar v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.Naveen Kumar ... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.No. 1304 of 2026 2.Dinakaran ... Petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No. 1610 of 2026
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, D-6 Police Station Podhaturpet, Tiruvallur District Tamil Nadu - 631 208 Crime No. 203 of 2025.
... Respondent in both petitions Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No. 203 of 2025 In Crl.O.P.No. 1304 of 2026:
For Petitioner : Mrs.Shaikh Mehrunisa In Crl.O.P.No. 1610 of 2026:
For Petitioner : Mr.P. Muthamizhselvakumar In both petitions:
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/6
COMMON ORDER (i) The petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.No.1304 of 2026, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of BNSS and Section 103(1), 238 of BNS read with under Section 61(2) of BNS Act, in Crime No.203 of 2025 on the file of respondent police, seeks bail.
(ii) The petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.1610 of 2026, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of BNSS and Section 103(1), 238 of BNS read with under Section 61(2) of BNS Act, in Crime No.203 of 2025 on the file of respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.1610 of 2026 who is ranked as A3 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.1304 of 2026 who is ranked as A4 in this case. It is alleged that the deceased Ganesan was working in a Government School at Podhatturpet, and the deceased met with an accident on 17.09.2025 at Manavalan Nagar, and thereafter, undergone surgery and was bedridden and under medical treatment in his house. At that time, A5 and A6 are the sons of the deceased in this case have colluded and conspired to clear all these insurance claims 2/6
and also for getting a government job compassionate appointment. For that purpose, they colluded and conspired with A1. As per the guidance of A1, A3 was engaged for bringing a snake and accordingly, one week prior to the occurrence, they made the snake to bite the deceased while he was sleeping. However, the deceased survived. In the second attempt A5 forced his mother to sleep in another room, A2 and A3, brought by A4, went to the deceased's house, and made the snake to bite the deceased, resulted in causing death. Hence, the case is under suspicious death was registered, and investigation revealed the above facts. The respondent police arrested the petitioners on 19.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 respectively. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the conspiracy.
By believing the words from the other accused for purpose of performing Pooja, he brought the snake and handed it over to the other accused. He has been falsely implicated and the petitioner was arrested on 19.12.2025. However, the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed to grant bail after considering the period of incarceration.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner/A4 submitted that he was only a friend of A5 and A6 and there are several money transactions between them and further, as per the request made by A5, the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.28,000/- through G-Pay and transferred it to A1 which was then transferred to one Shyam. He further submitted that the petitioner was not involved any alleged occurrence of snake bite incident. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5.Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are several money transactions were taken place among the accused and particularly, A5 and A6 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for committing murder by snake bite and accordingly, a sum of Rs.98,000/- was paid by A6 to A4; and Rs.15,000/- paid to A1, and Rs.10,000/- was paid to A3. There are other materials to show that the petitioner/A4 actively colluded and participated in the occurrence, and even in the first occurrence A3 brought the snake and forced the snake to bite the deceased. However, deceased survived after treatment at Sri Ramachandra Private Hospital, Porur, Chennai, and returned home. The second occurrence happened in a similar manner. A4 also pledged a car and collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the instructions of A6. Therefore, he 4/6
strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/A3 & A4. 6.Considering the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, and also there are financial transactions taken place between the accused, and it is also a case of pre-planned murder, and the fact that the petitioners were arrested recently, and if the bail is granted to the petitioners, they would tamper the witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
7.Accordingly, both the Criminal Original Petitions shall stands dismissed.
28.01.2026 MSM To 1.The Inspector of Police, D-6 Police Station Podhaturpet, Tiruvallur District Tamil Nadu - 631 208 Crime No. 203 of 2025.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6
K.RAJASEKAR J.
MSM Crl.O.P.Nos.1304 & 1610 of 2026 28.01.2026 6/6