Sivapraveen v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Batlagundu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sivapraveen

...Petitioner/Accused No.5

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.91 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner:Mr.S.Poornachandran for M/s.K.Thenrajan For Respondent:Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/9

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.5, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 192(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023 @ 191(2), 192(3), 296(b) and 103(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased, Rameshkannan. The deceased was engaged in running a four wheeler mechanic shop near Batlagundu Chidambaram Petrol Bunk. On 16.02.2026, a monetary dispute arose between Mukesh and Karthik. At that time, the deceased advised them not to quarrel near his shop. Offender by this, one Harish @ Petrol picked a quarrel with the deceased, issued threats and left the place. 2/9

Thereafter on 17.02.2026, at about 07.00 p.m., A1 along with other accused persons unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons, abused the deceased in vulgar language and forcibly took him on their bike and assaulted him with dangerous weapons. They inflicted multiple injuries on his face, head, chest, back, hands and legs and abandoned him near Sendrayaperumalkoil. Upon receiving information, the defacto complainant accompanied by her brother and Mukesh, rescued the injured deceased and admitted him first at Batlagundu Hospital. Despite receiving medical treatment, due to the grievous injuries inflicted by the accused, the deceased succumbed to death on 23.02.2026 at about 05.00 a.m.. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he 3/9

is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the co-accused was already granted bail by the trial Court and the defacto complainant is not an eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.02.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit the petitioner and other accused persons unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and attacked him with dangerous weapons and thereby caused injuries on all over the body and the deceased succumbed to death. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending and the offences are grave in nature. Therefore, he vehemently, opposed to grant of bail.

4/9

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and even according to the prosecution, the defacto complainant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner has been arrayed as accused only on suspicion and the coaccused was already released on bail by the Sessions Court and according to the prosecution, the petitioner assaulted the deceased with hands and no weapons have been used by the petitioner and the investigation is almost completed and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 23.02.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

5/9

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m.

until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

6/9

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 learned 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].

7/9

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 20.04.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Dindigul District.

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

8/9

P.DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6034 of 2026 Date : 20.04.2026 9/9