← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9580/2026granted

D.Arjunan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vengamedu

2026-06-22Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL D.Arjunan

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs The Inspector of Police Vengamedu Police Station Karur District (Crime No. 125 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.125 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A5, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 127(7), 1/6

138, 142,351(3) of BNS @ 191(2), 191(3), 296(b),118(2), 127(7), 138, 142, 351(3) and 103 (1) of BNS in Crime No.125 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased is doing real estate business and due to his business he used to visit Karur often. In this circumstances on 27.04.2026 the uncle of the defacto complainant viz., Ramesh contacted the defacto complainant andtold him that himself, the father of the defacto complainant, viz Pushparaj, Edvin babu, Raja and Elangershwaran Balaji came to Karur for their business and he told him that the accused came there and they threatened the father of the defacto complainant and others and on the same day at about 3.00 pm., the accused have kidnapped the father of the defacto complainant and on the same day the defacto complainant received a call from the mobile phone of his father and the accused have told the defacto complainant that they have kidnapped his father and demanded him a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and to come to Sivagiri with a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- immediately. Thereafter the defacto complainant gave complaint regarding the above said fact and on the next day. Hence the case.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2025. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner.. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused persons have kidnapped the father of the defacto complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the nature of offences and and the fact that there is a dispute between the parties and initially the case has been registered under Section 127(7), 138, 142,351(3) of BNS and during pendency of the 3/6

investigation the case has been altered to Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(2), 127(7), 138, 142, 351(3) and 103 (1) of BNS and now material part of the investigation might have been completed and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. , until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any 4/6

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 22.06.2026 aav To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur 2.The Inspector of Police Vengamedu Police Station, Karur District

3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Karur 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9580 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 6/6