Dhanasurya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thirumayam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10326 of 2026 Dhanasurya

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.76 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar 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. 76 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 21.04.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 140(1) and 103(1) of BNS, in Crime No.76 of 1/6

2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2026 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased along with his friends, had gone towards Malaiyandikanmai for bathing and while they were standing near the TASMAC shop situated at Malaikudipatti, the accused persons came in a four wheeler, armed with deadly weapons, thereby, assaulted him and forcibly abducted him in the vehicle and thereafter attacked him with sickles and other deadly weapons, causing multiple injuries, due to which the deceased succumbed to death. 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. No specific overt act against the petitioner. 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. The accused persons brutally attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused death. Investigation is still pending. The petitioner has two previous cases. Coaccused in this case was released on bail. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to 2/6

the petitioner.

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

7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, already the material part of the investigation might to have been completed, though the prosecution has stated that the petitioner has 2 previous cases, in all those cases he was already granted bail, co-accused namely A4 and A5 were already granted bail 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 satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily, at 10.30 a.m., until further orders:

3/6

[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 registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 22.06.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.76 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Pudukkottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10326 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 6/6