Sowmiyan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/06/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI CRL OP(MD).Nos.8834, 8835 & 8861 of 2025 Sowmiyan, S/o.Kannan, 350E, Near Govt., ITI, Madurai Road, Theni, ..Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.156 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant M/s.s.Muniyandi 1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8835 of 2025 Akash, S/o.Karuppasamy, Valluvar Colony, Kunnur, Karuvelanayakkanpatty, Andipatti Taluk, ..Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.156 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant M/s.S.Muniyandi Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8861 of 2025 Mukeshpandi, S/o.Singam, No.C45-I, Valluvar Colony, Karuvelanayackanpatti, ..Petitioner/Accused No.10 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.156 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant 2/6
M/s.C.Susikumar PETITIONS FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS COMMON PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.156 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8834 of 2025, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 127(2), 140(3), 351(3) of BNS altered into 191 (2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 127(2), 140(3), 103(1), 238 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.156 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner/accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8835 of 2025, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118 (1), 127(2), 140(3), 351(3) of BNS altered into 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 127(2), 140 (3), 103(1), 238 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.156 of 2025 and the petitioner/Accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.
8861 of 2025, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.
No.156 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant is the own sister of the deceased namely Dilip. The deceased Dilip and her sister's son namely Kaluva are used to sell spectacles in other states. Her sister's son Kaluva informed over phone that on 15.04.2025 at about 01.30p.m. the accused persons abducted the deceased Dhilip and himself to coconut grove, where the petitioners and co-accused persons indiscriminately attacked them with pipe and other materials and thereby the deceased Dhilip has sustained sever injuries and died. They left the Kaluva with injuries. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the deceased Dhilip had cheated the one Mohan who is the named accused in this case, by way of polishing the jewels. There is no intention or motive between the petitioners and the deceased Dhilip. The first accused Mohan was arrested by the respondent police, based on his confession statement only these petitioners are arrayed as one of the accused in the present case. The petitioners having their resident and agricultural land in which the dead body was buried by the co-accused. Because of the reason only these petitioners are implicated as accused in this case. The alleged occurrence was took place on 15.04.2025 and the respondent police arrested and remanded the petitioners only on 25.04.2025 and 28.04.2025 respectively. He further submits that 4/6
the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide any conditions imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioners are in custody from 25.04.2025 & 28.04.2025 respectively, Hence, he seeks bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are totally 17 persons involved in the alleged occurrence. Only four accused were arrested, remaining accused persons are not yet secured by the respondent police. In this case, investigation is still pending. The allegations are serious in nature. Hence, he objected to grant bail to the petitioners.
5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that in this case, the specific overtact is only against these petitioners and considering the fact that investigation is still pending and considering the gravity and nature of offences involved in this case, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are stand dismissed. sd/- 03/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
5/6
gvn TO
1. The Inspector of Police, 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, ANDIPATTI, THENI.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8834 of 2025 Date :03/06/2025 MK/23.06.2025 6P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6