Shanmugam v. State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
This matter is listed under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In the order dated 11.09.2025, it has been wrongly mentioned in the prayer portion as well as in 1st paragraph of the order as "Crime No.120 of 2025"
instead of "S.C.No.517 of 2025 pending trial on the file of learned XVI-Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai".
3. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned immediately.
18.09.2025 dna Note: Issue order copy on 18.09.2025.
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Shanmugam ... Petitioner Vs.
State by:
The Inspector of Police, J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.120 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.120 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Arun Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 103(2) & 351(3) of BNS @ 61(2)(a) r/w 103(1), 191(3), 103(1) (2 counts), 351(3), 253(a), 103(1) r/w 2/7
49 of BNS @ Act, in Crime No.120 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner was neither involved in the alleged occurrence nor present at the scene of occurrence. Based solely on the confession of A4, he has been falsely implicated. His name was not even mentioned in the FIR, and therefore, he prayed for bail.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) raised strong objections, stating that during the course of investigation, based on the confession statement, the petitioner/A6 along with other accused was implicated and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, an identification parade was conducted, in which five eyewitnesses, who were allegedly present at the time of occurrence, identified him. Therefore, the prosecution strongly objected to granting bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that A2, A4, and A9 have already been granted bail by this Court, and on perusal of the orders granting bail to those accused, it is evident that there were no specific overt acts 3/7
attributed to them, as observed by this Court. 5.As per the counter objections made by the prosecution, the petitioner was identified by witnesses during the identification parade. It was also submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal cases or bad antecedents. The final report has already been filed, and since co-accused have been released on bail, the petitioner also seeks similar relief.
6. Considering the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court, and also taking into account the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial 4/7
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 stay at Ramnad and sign before the Town Police Station, Ramnad, daily at 10:30 a.m. for a period of three months, and thereafter, on every Saturday for another three months.
(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
(g) the petitioner shall not have any communication with the family of the victim.
8. Considering the fact that the deceased, aged about 23 and 27 years respectively, lost their lives, and the mental agony suffered by their families, this 5/7
Court is inclined to refer the matter under the Victim Compensation Scheme. Accordingly, the District Legal Services Authority, Chennai, has referred the matter to the District Collector under the said Scheme.
9. The District Collector is directed to provide compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to each family of the deceased, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The legal heirs of the deceased are permitted to receive the said amount in the manner known to law. 11.09.2025 rri 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.
6/7
T.V.THAMILSELVI , J.
rri To 1.The XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5. The District Legal Services Authority, Chennai. 11.09.2025 7/7