G.Mohanraj v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.02.2026 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.4414 of 2026 G.Mohanraj G.Hariharan ... Petitioners -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Podhatturpet Police Station, Tiruvallur District.
(Crime No.203 of 2022) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.203 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners :
Mr.N.Kumanan For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *********
ORDER
The petitioners/A5 & A6, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.12.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 r/w 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.203 of 2022, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
1/7
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they are ranked as A5 and A6. 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, the petitioners are the sons of the deceased in this case have colluded and conspired to clear all these insurance claims 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. Hence, a case has been registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the sons of the deceased in this case. He further submitted that the majority of the allegations are attributed against the first petitioner/A5, whereas, in respect of the second petitioner/A6, it is alleged that he came to 2/7
know about the occurrence only after the incident and had assisted the other accused thereafter. He further submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 20.12.2025 and that the petitioners have no previous cases pending against them. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the second petitioner/A6 were also involved in assisting the other accused including A5, in the commission of the offence of murder. He also submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the allegations relating to conspiracy, payment of huge amount for committing murder and engaging other accused are mainly attributed against the first petitioner/ A5, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the first petitioner/A5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with respect of first petitioner/A5.
7. In so far as the second petitioner/A6 is concerned, the fact that the second petitioner/A6 is in judicial custody since 20.12.2025, considering his limited role, and that he has no previous antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner/A6, subject to certain conditions. 3/7
8. Accordingly, the second petitioner/A6 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu, and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the second petitioner/A6 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the second petitioner/A6 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the second petitioner/A6 shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate 4/7
action against the second petitioner/A6 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the second petitioner/A6 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 B.N.S.
23.02.2026 drl Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies.
To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
5/7
To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallipattu.
2.The Inspector of Police, Podhatturpet Police Station, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
drl Crl.O.P.No.4414 of 2026 23.02.2026 7/7