Krishnaprasath v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kodaikanal

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. 6464 of 2026 Krishnaprasath ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.75 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 75 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 27.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 311 BNS @ 103(1), 190, 191(2), 310(3), 311, 49, 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.75 of 2026 on 1/5

the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2026, the petitioner along with other persons, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, unlawfully entered the cottage, consumed alcohol, created disturbance and wrongfully confined the deceased along with the caretaker and others in a room. Thereafter, the accused persons robbed the gold jewels of the deceased and brutally murdered him and absconded from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the case has been registered.

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 is a College going student and the exams will be commenced from 11th April 2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused are close nexus with the deceased. The deceased in Chennai, A9 acted as attender. The defacto complainant having property in Kodaikanal. To grab the same, the accused joined 2/5

together planned to commit murder, by stopping his breath by closing his mouth. Due to suffocation, he died. One Murali also died. All the 11 accused are present in the place of occurrence. Jewels were recovered and documents were also recovered from them. Investigation is in initial stage. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2026 only. The offences are henious in nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of 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, that the investigation is in initial stage, as per the prosecution all the accused persons directly participated in the occurrence and considering the henious nature of the offence, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 06.04.2026 TM 3/5

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.75 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Peraorani, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6464 of 2026 Date : 06.04.2026 5/5