← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8442/2025dismissed

R Shanmuga Ram v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2025-06-24Honourable Mr Justice P.Vadamalai5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 10.06.2025 Pronounced on : 24.06.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI and Crl.M.P(MD)No.6933 of 2025 R.Shanmuga Ram

...Petitioner/

Accused Rank Not Known Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Keela Paralachi Police Station, Virudhungagr District.

(Crime No.43 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.43 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Vanchinathan 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail upon the apprehension of arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence U/s.194 of BNSS, 2023 altered into Section 108 of BNS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.43 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Muthukumar is the husband of the defacto complainant obtained loan from several persons including the petitioner. The petitioner demanded repayment loan amount repeatedly and also assaulted him with chappal prior to death and the defacto complainant's husband was under depression. Feeling such depression, on 20.04.2025, the husband of the defacto complaint consumed poison and died on 01.05.2025 in the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar in spite of treatment.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the deceased are relatives. The petitioner lent Rs.2,00,000/- without interest to the deceased on humanitarian reasons for education of his children and also for 2/5

construction of house. There had been no contact between the petitioner and the deceased for six months prior to the death. As the deceased was said to be misappropriated the public fund, and financial difficulties were faced by the deceased. The petitioner is not responsible for the mental status of the deceased. The alleged suicide note is a false one. The petitioner has not committed any act as against the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the deceased borrowed money from the petitioner and other various persons. As there was continuous demand for repayment of loan by the petitioner, and also used abusive words against the deceased. The deceased made suicide note on 19.04.2025 and 20.04.2025, the deceased consumed poison and subsequently died on 01.05.2025 while he was under treatment. The suicide note was recovered and the investigation is at preliminary stage. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a chance of tampering and hampering evidences by the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

3/5

5. The counsel for the intervening petitioner/defacto complainant submitted that while her husband was under treatment, he said to her about the diary and on search of diary, the defacto complainant came to know about the consumption of poison by her husband. Her husband clearly stated in the suicide note as if the petitioner had beaten the deceased with chappal by demanding repayment of loan, though huge interest was paid towards the loan. The petitioner will tamper the evidence if he is granted anticipatory bail.

6. Heard and perused the available records. It is seen from the records that the copy of the suicide note, dated 19.04.2025, is filed along with the records. From the contents of the suicide note, it is revealed that the act of abusive words used by the petitioner about the mother and wife of the deceased would lead to commit suicide. The contents of the suicide note further revealed that on the date of the suicide note, the deceased was also beaten with a chappal by the petitioner by using filthy language. So, there is a prima facie allegation and overtact as against the petitioner. The FIR was registered on 01.05.2025, and the investigation is at preliminary stage. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4/5

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

sd/- 24/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

VSD To 1.The Inspector of Police, Keela Paralachi Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8442 of 2025 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.6933 of 2025 Date :24/06/2025 HPS/03.07.2025 /5P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5