Sankarammal v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sivanthipatti
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28/05/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA and Crl MP(MD) No.6661 of 2025 Sankarammal, W/o.Ganesan, Main Road, Muthur Village, Palayamkottai Taluk, Tirunelveli District ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, Sivathipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.167 of 2025).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.T.Leninkumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Ms.Abiya PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.167 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 103(1) & 49 1/4
of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.167 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was arrayed as A2 committed offence under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and abetted her husband to commit the murder as her father-in-law refused to pay part of the sale consideration. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and the offence was committed by A1, who had already surrendered and confessed about the crime and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 01.04.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.
4. Ms.Abiya, the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the intervene petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased is an old age lady, was compelled by the petitioner/A2's brother to compromise the issue and also made life threat to her. Hence, she has also filed a complaint before the Tiruelveli District Collector as well as the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. He would further submit that, if the accused is released on bail, there will be life threat to her and another incident may occur. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the charge against the petitioner / A2 is abetment to commit the crime and during the statement 2/4
by the mother of A1 before the Magistrate, she has also stated that her daughter-inlaw's brother compelled her to compromise the issue. He would further submit that the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the documents placed on record.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels and the seriousness of the offences and also the fact that the investigation is yet to be completed and if the petitioner/A2 is released on bail, there are every chance to tamper the witnesses and hamper the evidence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. sd/- 28/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
3/4
MAC TO 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVATHIPATTI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8787 of 2025 Date :28/05/2025 SA/SAR. /02.06.2025/4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 4/4