Mr.Devanathan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Devanathan ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram.

... Respondent(s) Crime No.224 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.224 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sharath Chandran For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.06.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.224 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, who was working as a Supervisor in Sri Varadharaja Swami Sannadhi, Mudhaliyarpet, Puducherry. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of Sri Varadharaja Swami Sannadhi, Mudhaliyarpet, Puducherry. The deceased was working as a Supervisor in the Temple and, according to the CCTV footage available with the Temple, the deceased had committed theft of 165 kilograms of brass rods belonging to the Temple. In this connection, a complaint came to be lodged on 24.05.2026 before the Mudhaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry. After the registration of the complaint, the deceased allegedly committed suicide. Therefore, there was no question of any abetment on the part of the petitioner, who had only discharged his legal duty as the Trustee of the Temple. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had instructed the deceased to dispose of the brass rods and utilise the proceeds towards payment of salary. Subsequently, the deceased was allegedly compelled to give a letter 2/6

admitting theft of the Temple property. Unable to bear the pressure and humiliation, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, according to the prosecution, there was a clear act of abetment on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that there is also a voice note left by the deceased implicating the petitioner.

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

6. On a consideration of the materials placed before this Court, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the deceased on 24.05.2026 before the Mudhaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry, alleging theft of Temple property. The petitioner also claims to possess CCTV footage showing the involvement of the deceased in the alleged theft.

7. In the above circumstances, though the death of the deceased on 31.05.2026 is indeed unfortunate, the question as to whether the acts attributed to the petitioner would constitute abetment of suicide is a matter that can be established only after a thorough investigation. At this stage, this Court is of the view that the further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 3/6

This Court also takes note of the fact that, by this time, a major portion of the investigation appears to have been completed.

8. Hence, considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the fact that the further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

9. 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram, and subject to the following conditions: [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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 15 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

4/6

[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 petitioners 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.

18.06.2026 skr 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

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram

2. The Superintendent, District Prison, Villupuram.

3. The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 18.06.2026 6/6