Mayilvaganan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.06.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI 1.Mayilvaganan, S/o.Seenivasan 2.Govindhan, S/o.Lakshmanan
...Petitioners / A1 and A2
Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Dhalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.149 of 2025) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioners :
Mr.G.Kalidoss, Advocate.
For Respondent :
Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023. 1/4
PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.149 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2025 for the offences under Section 194 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 @ Sections 105 and 328 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.149 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased. On 02.06.2025, at about 07:00 P.M., the defacto complainant's husband left their house for Puttur after receiving Rs. 100/- for his expenses. On the following day, i.e., 03.06.2025, at about 11:00 A.M., the deceased was found lying with injuries in a pond situated to the west of Vedhanayagapuram. During the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioners had illegally installed an electric fence around their land. It is alleged that the deceased came into contact with the electric fence, sustained an electric shock, and died on the spot. Further, it is alleged that in order to dispose of the body and conceal the incident, the petitioners removed the deceased's body and threw it into the pond. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He 2/4
would further submit that the petitioners are in custody from 04.06.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the accused persons removed the body of the deceased and disposed of it by throwing it into the pond. He would further submit that there are no previous cases registered against the petitioners. He would further submit that the investigation in this case is at a nascent stage. He would also submit that if bail is granted to the petitioners, there is a likelihood that they may abscond and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, he strongly opposes the grant of bail to the petitioners.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, and taking note the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail, they may indulge in tampering with the witnesses and the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 3/4
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 20/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
pal TO
1. The Inspector of Police, Dhalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10319 of 2025 Date :20/06/2025 MK/04.07.2025 4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4