Munishwaran @ Vetri v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dindigul Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD)No.4793 of 2026 Munishwaran @ Vetri ... Petitioner / Accused No.10

Versus

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.11 of 2026) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Rajiv, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 329(4) and 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 448 and 302 of the IPC), in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between A1, A2, A5 and A6 and the deceased brother of the defacto complainant with regard to the murder of one Mayandi @ Joseph, who is the brother of A1, A2, A5 and A6, in the above said FIR. In order to take revenge for the murder of Mayandi @ Joseph, on 08.01.2026 at about 7.10 p.m., when the deceased Jesuraja was riding his two-wheeler, A1 to A4 along with two others attacked and murdered him. Subsequently, on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., upon the instigation of A1, A6 and A7 attacked the second wife of the deceased Jesuraja, namely Gnanadeepika, and caused her death and thereafter fled from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the present case has been registered for the above offences. 2/5

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration from 12.01.2026 onwards. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case of retaliation murder and that A1 to A4 have been detained under Act 14. However, he objected to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Considering the fact that this is a case of retaliation murder and that some of the accused persons have been detained under Act 14, and also taking into account the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 05.03.2026 pal 3/5

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.

pal

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4793 of 2026 Date : 05.03.2026 5/5