Sivagami v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. Sivagami

2. Rajeswari @ Govindhammal ... Petitioners Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thirukazhukundram Police Station Chengalpattu District (Crime No 136 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 136 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thirukazhukundram Police Station, Chengalpattu District. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Murugavel For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitionesr, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Section 296(b), 108 and 62 of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No. 136 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

Page No.1 of 4

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the petitioners. Out of frustration, the deceased is said to have poured paint thinner on her body and set fired herself. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally two accused in which A1 is the brother-in-law's wife of deceased and A2 is the aunt of A1. He submits that the deceased and the petitioners were relatives and neighbours. The petitioners used to throw garbage near the common water pipeline, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners abused her in a filthy language. Due to which, the defacto complainant poured paint thinner on her body and set fire herself. He also submits that dying declaration has Page No.2 of 4

also been recorded from the deceased. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the dying declaration recorded from the deceased.

6. On perusal of the dying declaration, it is revealed that the petitioners had been verbally abusing the defacto complainant by casting aspersions on her character for the past 18 years. Consequently, on the date of occurrence, she poured paint thinner over herself and set herself ablaze, resulting in grievous burn injuries to which, she later died in the hospital.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court feels that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 14.07.2025 nr Page No.3 of 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

NR To

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram Chengalpattu District

2. The Inspector of Police, Thirukazhukundram Police Station Chengalpattu District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

14.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4