J.Madhankumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Cumbum North

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6469 of 2026 J.Madhankumar ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District.

(Crime No.124 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 124 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections194 BNSS @ 296(b), 127(2), 115(2), 108 of BNS Act, in Crime No.124 of 2026 on the file of the 1/6

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous dispute, there was wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant's husband and the accused, in which, the accused attacked the defacto complainant's husband and instigated him to commit suicide. In the result, the deceased hanging himself and died. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner and the deceased are load man. Due to the money dispute there was quarrel between them on 18.12.2025. Except that there is no connection with the above said suicide committed by the deceased. But, the deceased committed suicide on 25.02.2026, not immediate after the quarrel. A3 has been released on bail. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the the petitioner being a load man, demanding money from the deceased along with other accused and attacked him and 2/6

humiliated to commit suicide. The deceased also sustained injuries. The deceased left suicide note. Totally there are four accused. The petitioner is A4. The anticipatory bail application moved by the A1 and A2 are dismissed and now they are absconding. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. However, there is no previous case pending against 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, considering the fact that there is no material to show that soon before the death of the deceased the petitioner induced him to commit suicide, even as per the prosecution case the dispute arose between the parties on 18.12.2025 and thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on 25.02.2026 and there is no direct nexus for the above said incident, co-accused was also released on bail and there is no previous case against the petitioner, and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner from 26.02.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[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, Uthamapalayam 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 he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she 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 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 4/6

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) 06.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District.

(Crime No.124 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Thekkam Patty Prison, Theni District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6469 of 2026 Date : 06.04.2026 6/6