Dhanasekaran v. State By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
1. Dhanasekaran S/o.Subramani, No.128, Mulakarai Street, Nallur Village, Vaiyavur Post, Kanchipuram District.
2. Sridharan S/o.Subramani, No.128, Mulakarai Street, Nallur Village, Vaiyavur Post, Kanchipuram District.
Petitioner(s) Vs State by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District. Crime No.291/2025 Respondent(s) 1/5
PRAYER To enlarge the Petitioners on bail in Crime No.291 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. K.G.Senthilkumar For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.07.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 296(b), 103, 61(2), 351(3) and 49 of B.N.S. (Sec.294(b), 302,120(b), 506(ii) and 109 of I.P.C.) in Crime No.291 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused are family members and due to a dispute in sharing ancestral property, on the date of occurrence, with an ill-motive the petitioners along with other accused have said to have attacked the deceased, due to which, she died. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this 2/5
case as they along with other accused, with an illmotive attacked the deceased, thereby she sustained serious injuries and died. But, in fact there is no specific overtact against these petitioners and they are innocent persons and they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that there is no role of the petitioners in the alleged offence. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration from 10.07.2025 for more than two months. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the deceased is the wife of one of brothers of A2 and all the accused were family members and there was a family dispute with regard to division of property, thereby on the date of occurrence, with an illmotive they have attacked the deceased, due to which he died and these petitioners also conspired with A2. He would submit that totally, there are 5 accused involved in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A4 to A5 and they are sons of A2 and A3. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they may abscond and they would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. 3/5
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and according to prosecution, the deceased is the wife of one of brother of A2 and all the accused were family members and there was a family dispute with regard to division of property, thereby on the date of occurrence, with an ill-motive they have attacked the deceased, due to which she died and so, on seeing the gravity of offence committed by the petitioners and also the fact that now investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, if they are released on bail, they may abscond and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
10-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To
1. Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram Dt.
2. Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram Dt.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4/5
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
rpp CRL OP No. 23935 of 10-09-2025 5/5