Mathan @ Mathan Raj v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.01.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

1. Mathan @ Mathan Raj

2. Bala @ Bala Murugan

3. Sakthivel ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.155 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Sureshkumar For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail S.C.No.160 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Court, Sivaganai, in Crime No.155 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, A3 and A4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.03.2025 and A5 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2), of BNS 2023 @ 191(2). 191(3), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2), 61(2) & 3(5) of BNS 2023, in S.C.No.160 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Court, Sivagangai, in Crime .No.155 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between the father of the 1st accused and one Prakash, as a result of which, the said Prakash and his henchmen have murdered the father of the 1st accused. In retaliation, the petitioners along with other accused persons have murdered the son of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the 2/5

petitioners are not present in the scene of occurrence and they are friends of A1. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court and they are in judicial custody from 26.03.2025 and 22.03.2025. Hence, he seek bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the video depicting the entire scene of occurrence had already been circulated before this Court and that the trial had commenced; therefore, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the video circulated by the prosecution, it prima facie appears that the petitioners have committed a serious offence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 20.01.2026 jbr 3/5

To

1. The Additional District Court, Sivagangai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Sivagangai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J.

jbr

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.631 of 2026 Date : 20.01.2026 5/5