Ram v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thilagar Thidal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 8201 of 2026 Ram
...Petitioner
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.503 of 2025)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.K.Manikandan PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 503 of 2025 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 19.01.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of BNS 1/5
later altered into 103(1), 238, 239, 240 of BNS and 4 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.503 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the son of the deceased Kalyani. It is alleged that on 17.12.2025 around 08.27 p.m. the defacto complainant received a phone call from his mother who was working as Senior Branch Manager in LIC, West Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai. While the defacto complainant attending the call, he heard her voice asking some one to call the police. Immediately the defacto complainant rushed to the office, where he found a crowd of police and noticed smoke from the premises. Thereafter his mother brought out on a stretcher had sustained injury and taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where she was declared as dead. Later on investigation it is came to know that due to previous enmity with his higher official, the petitioner, who is the Assistant Administrative Officer, set fire to the office while the deceased was alone inside. As a result, the deceased was burned to death. 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. On suspicious after 20 2/5
days from the date of occurrence, the case was altered into murder. There is a chance to commit suicide. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The petitioner set fire into the office with a plan to murder the deceased, when she was in alone in the office. The petitioner has no previous case. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that there is a previous dispute between the deceased and this petitioner regarding his work performance. Hence, the deceased complained him with the higher officials. With this motive, with a plan to murder the deceased the petitioner set fire to the LIC Office, when she is in alone. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on 3/5
either side, considering the gravity of the offence and also considering the manner in which the occurrence taken place, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 30.04.2026 TM To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.503 of 2025) 2.The Superintendent, Central Jail, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
P. DHANABAL, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8201 of 2026 Date : 30.04.2026 5/5