Saravanan v. State Represented By The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Saravanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Represented by The Sub Inspector of Police Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District.

Tamil Nadu Crime No.57/2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in Crime No.57 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.P.Sivakumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.03.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 @ Sections 103(1) and 238

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.57 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother of the deceased. According to her initial statement, her son used to consume alcohol routinely and was a fits patient. On 21.03.2026, her daughterin-law, who is arrayed as Accused No.1 (A1), informed her that her husband was unconscious and had been admitted to the hospital, where he was declared dead. The respondent police initially registered a case of suspicious death and, during the inquiry, questioned the petitioner and A1. The investigation revealed that A1 and her paramour, the present petitioner, entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased. Accordingly, on 21.03.2026, the petitioner and A1 murdered the deceased, who was in an intoxicated condition, by strangulation, and thereafter stage-managed the scene to make it appear as though he died due to fits. Pursuant to the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded in judicial custody on 21.03.2026. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He further submits that though the prosecution alleges that the deceased was murdered due to a dispute regarding an illicit relationship, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He contends that the petitioner has been in continuous incarceration for a significant duration, and since a major portion

of the investigation has already been completed, the petitioner seeks the grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that the post-mortem report clearly reveals that the deceased died due to strangulation and not fits. He further contends that the petitioner and A1 conspired together to eliminate the deceased, and as the investigation is still in progress, releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage would prejudice the trial.

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

6. Though the learned Government Counsel strongly opposes the bail application looking at the gravity and serious nature of the offence, this Court takes into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the petitioner has been in continuous incarceration since 21.03.2026 and that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their 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 Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 petitioner shall report before respondent Police daily at 10:30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni

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 Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore.

2.The Superintendent, Central Jail, Vellore.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 10-06-2026