M. Surendran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Elayirampannai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7059 of 2026 M.Surendran

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Elayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.49 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 103(1) of BNS Act, in Crime No.49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent 1/6

police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother of the accused and the wife of the deceased. The deceased usually came to the house in drunken mode and picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant. The same was warned by the son, who is the accused. But, it was continued. On 18.02.2026, at about 11.00 a.m, when the same was continued, the deceased assaulted him with aruval and caused injuries. At that time, the petitioner suddenly pushed down him, abused him in filthy language and assaulted with aruval on his back head and due to that injuries sustained on the head, he died on the spot. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The above said occurrence was not happened wantonly. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 2/6

would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant the present case has been registered. The defacto complainant is the mother of the accused and wife of the deceased. Suspecting the fidelity of the defacto complainant, the deceased quarreled with her. At that time, the accused entered into the house and warned the deceased. Thereafter, he assaulted him with aruval, thereby, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. There is no previous case 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 nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, there is family dispute between the mother of the petitioner and the deceased, at that time, this occurrence was happened, the date of occurrence is 18.02.2026, by this time a part of investigation might to have been completed, that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police 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 4/6

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) 20.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Elayirampannai Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.49 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Distict Jail, Virudhunagar. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7059 of 2026 Date : 20.04.2026 6/6