Umarani Sekar v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Umarani Sekar 2.Saratha 3.Vignaya :Petitioners Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station, Theni District.
Crime No.156 of 2025) : Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.N.Madhava Govindhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.156 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/4
The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 127(2), 140(3), 191(2), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS altered into Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118 (1), 127(2), 140(3), 61(2), 103(1), 238 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.156 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused had abducted one Dhilip and Kaluva in a car and taken them to coconut grove where the accused persons indiscriminately attacked them by using pipe and other materials and thereby caused the death of the said Dhilip and injuries to the said Kaluva. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the there existed dispute between the parties 2/4
with regard to transaction of fake jewels, due to which, the accused had abducted the deceased and the injured in a car and murdered the deceased. He would further submit that the property was recovered by the respondent police and the investigation is in progress. He would also submit that the first petitioner/A8 was arrested and is in custody.
5.In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous in respect of first petitioner/A8 alone.
6.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and considering the fact that it is a murder case and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the petitioners 2 and 3.
sd/- 04/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
3/4
DAS TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THENI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8463 of 2025 Date :04/07/2025 NM/22.07.2025/ 4P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4