Suriya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Arumuganeri

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Suriya ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Arumuganeri, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.312 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner:Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondent:Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 312 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.10.2025 for the offences punishable under 296(b), 115((2), 118(1), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.312 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working in a Iron Scrap Shop and in that shop, some other persons were also working. All of them were staying jointly in a room. On 03.10.2025, at about 11.00 p.m., the petitioner and other accused persons went there and quarreled with them. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused persons attacked them with hands, legs, Aruval and wooden log and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint.

2/8

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 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. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.10.2025. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur, and the same is pending for committal proceedings. He would further submit that the petitioner has 12 previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. Therefore, he 3/8

vehemently, opposed to grant of bail.

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 considering the fact that there is a money dispute between the parties and though the petitioner has 12 previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offence and in all cases, he was released on bail and the investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet also filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur and the same is pending for committal proceedings and also considering the fact that the co-accused was already granted bail and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is 4/8

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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District, daily at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, 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 5/8

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 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].

6/8

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

(P D B J) 15.04.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District, 2.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Arumuganeri, Thoothukudi District.

3.The Superintendent, District jail, Peraurani, Thoothukudi District.

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

7/8

P.DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7318 of 2026 Date : 15.04.2026 8/8