Saraswathi v. The State Rep.By Its, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Saraswathi ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.16183 of 2026 Vanitha ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.16185 of 2026 Vs.

The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dhali Police Station, Tiruppur District.

... Respondent in both petitions Crime No.75 of 2026 COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.75 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. In Both Petitions For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Balaji For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 194(1) of BNSS, 2023, subsequently altered to Sections 61(2), 238 and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

1/6

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners, along with the other accused, owing to a property dispute, attacked the deceased with an Aruvalmanai, resulting in his death. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in custody since 19.04.2026 and are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.06.2026 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15071 of 2026. Hence, on the ground of parity, he prayed for the grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the motive behind the occurrence was a property dispute. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the co-accused, as the role attributed to the co-accused was only that of screening the evidence after the occurrence. It is the specific submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the accused had stage-managed the occurrence as though the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. He further submitted that a major portion of the 2/6

investigation has already been completed and that the petitioners have no bad antecedents.

5. Though serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, including the allegation of having stage-managed the occurrence as a case of suicide, this Court is unable to prima facie find any material indicating premeditation. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners are women, the fact that they have no bad antecedents, the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, and also the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are 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-II, Udumalpet 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; 3/6

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. until further orders;

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

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

29.06.2026 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. 4/6

To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore

3. The Inspector of Police, Dhali Police Station, Tiruppur District

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr 29.06.2026 6/6