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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Munishwaran @ Vetri

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station Dindigul District (Crime No.11 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajiv For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A10, 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), 103(2) of BNS 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 @ Jospeh, who is the brother of A1, A2, A5 and A6 in the above said FIR. In order to take revenge fo the murder of Mayandi @ Joseph, on 08.01.2026 at about 7.10 pm., 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 pm., 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 case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner 2/6

has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.01.2026. He would further submit that the petitioner has been made as scapegoat to strengthen the prosecution case. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that this is a case of retaliation murder and when the deceased Jesuraja was riding his two wheeler, A1 to A4 along with two others attacked and murdered the deceased. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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 and also the considering the fact that investigation is almost completed and even as per the First Information Report there are seven named accused and two other accused involved in this case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is not a named accused in the First Information Report and also the fact that no previous case is pending 3/6

against the petitioner and also the fact that there is no specific overt act as against the petitioner also taking into consideration the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

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

[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 4/6

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].

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

(P D B J) 15.04.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul 2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station Dindigul District

3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Dindigul 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7227 of 2026 Date : 15.04.2026 6/6