E.Sivasankar v. The State, Represented By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.E.Sivasankar 2.R.Rani 3.R.Aravinthraj ... Petitioners/A7 to A9 Vs.
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
Crime No.146 of 2025.
... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail pending investigation in Crime No.146 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner :
Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondent :
Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.04.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 111 and 240 of BNS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.146 of 2025, registered on the file of 1/6
the respondent, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute between A8/de-facto complainant and her husband Rajendiran, 30 years ago they were separated and A-8 is living in her mother's house. The said Rajendiran is residing in a room situated near Sankari State Bank of India and he is running a nutrition centre nearby his room. A8 filed a civil suit before the II Additional District Judge, Salem seeking maintenance for herself and her children and the said case was posted on 25.04.2025. While so, on 31.03.2025 one Sakthi of Pakkaliyur informed A8 over phone that her husband found dead in his house. Immediately, A8 and her relatives rushed there and saw her husband, who was lying dead in an iron cot with injuries and then gave a complaint.
During enquiry, the police found that the petitioners also involved in the commission of offence and arrested the petitioners. Hence, the case. 3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent persons and they never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the co-accused/A3 was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14948 of 2025 on 14.05.2025.
grant of bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there was some misunderstanding between A8 and deceased Rajendiran, due to which, they were living separately. While so, A8 tried to arrange the marriage for her son A9, the same was prevented by the deceased. Hence, A8 and A9 engaged A1 to murder the deceased. A1 with the aid of other accused eliminated the deceased. He further submitted that the coaccused/A3 was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14948 of 2025 on 14.05.2025.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the fact that the co-accused/A3 was already granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14948 of 2025 on 14.05.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 3/6
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate 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, Sankari, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for further interrogation;
[c] the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de-facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, they shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;
[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass 4/6
appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 19.06.2025 rsi 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.
5/6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankari.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Woman Prison, Salem.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
19.06.2025 6/6