Rajkumar v. The State Represented By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rajkumar ..Petitioner Vs The State Represented by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Adhamangalam Pudur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

Crime No. 51 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 51 of 2026, on the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, Adhamangalam Pudur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai Distrist.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Silambuselvan For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 332(b), 309(4), 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.51 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. On the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant went to her mother's house and found that her mother had been assaulted and murdered by an unknown person and the jewels worn by her were found missing. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the present case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that according to the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that he murdered his mother-in-law and the FIR came to be registered based upon the information furnished by the petitioner's wife. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence connecting him with the occurrence. The learned counsel would further submit that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the investigation is still pending and the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. This Court is of the view that though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case rests upon circumstantial evidence and that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, the investigation is still pending. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order NSL 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. To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Adhamangalam Pudur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 01-06-2026