M.Muthukumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10199 of 2026 M.Muthukumar

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.

(Crime No.165 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Jegadeesha Pandian Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 165 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 109(1), 118(1), 311, 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPWH 1/6

Act @ to Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 109(1), 118(1), 311, 317(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPWH Act , in Crime No.165 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and committed riot and abused them in filthy language and assaulted them by using stone and sickle with an intention to murder. They also committed decoity of 31 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold chain and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner's name was not included in the FIR. He was implicated only on the basis of the confession statement made by the co-accused. Co-accused were arrested and released on bail. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. Due to the 2/6

dispute arose during the temple festival, the petitioner along with other accused persons unlawfully assembled and threatened the defacto complainant parties with dire consequences and also committed decoity of 31 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold chain. Injured was discharged from the hospital. The petitioner has no previous case. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of 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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, injured was discharged from the hospital, there is dispute between the parties in respect of the temple festival, already co-accused were arrested and released on bail, there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and considering the period of incarceration undergone 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 3/6

satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi, 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/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

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

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

registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 05.06.2026 TM To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.165 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Ramanathapuram. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10199 of 2026 Date : 05.06.2026 6/6