Prakash v. The State Represent By Station House Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Prakash ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represent By Station House Officer, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

Crime No.134 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.134 of 2026 pending, on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.C.Vishwanth 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 17.04.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.134 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that an incident took place following a wordy quarrel at a TASMAC outlet. The deceased, who is the father of the petitioner, was a habitual drunkard and was physically assaulting the petitioner's mother. In order to stop the assault and protect his mother, the petitioner intervened, attacked the deceased with a wooden log, and pushed him down. The deceased sustained injuries during the occurrence and subsequently succumbed to the same. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed the offence as alleged. He further submits that the deceased was a habitual drunkard who was brutally beating the petitioner's mother. The petitioner merely intervened to rescue his mother from the assault and pushed the deceased, and there was no premeditation or intention to cause death. He prays for the grant of bail considering the circumstances of the case and the petitioner's period of incarceration.

4. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposes the grant of bail, highlighting the gravity of the offence involving the death of the petitioner's father. However, he fairly submits that the investigation in this case has already been completed, though the final report is yet to be filed. He does not dispute the fact that the incident occurred

when the petitioner attempted to prevent the deceased from assaulting his mother.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the occurrence and the specific context in which the incident took place, this Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner intervened to protect his mother from being assaulted by the deceased. Taking into further consideration that the investigation has already been completed and noting the long incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain stringent conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, 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 the Inspector of Police, Amathur Police Station, Virudhunagar twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m., until further orders and no relaxation petition is entertained for a period of 30 days; [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.

12-06-2026 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.II, Panruti.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 3.The Station House Officer, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 12-06-2026