Somanathan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Tirunelveli
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Somanathan ... Petitioner//Sole Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No. 6 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : R.Niresh Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 336(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the mother of the defacto complainant and wife of the petitioner. The deceased died on 19.11.2025 during the pendency of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner forged the signature of the defacto complainant in notarized documents and used the same for claiming terminal benefits arising out of death of the deceased. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is a dispute between the parties in respect to get death benefits 2/6
of the deceased and even during the pendency of the divorce petition which was filed by the petitioner, the petitioner forged the signature of the defacto complainant in notarized documents and used the same for claiming terminal benefits arising out of death of the deceased and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and there is a dispute between the parties in respect to get death benefits of the deceased and the relationship between the parties and the alleged occurrence was took place on 29.12.2025 and FIR was registered only on 26.02.2026 and by this time, the material part of the investigation might have been completed and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
3/6
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on first working day of every English Calender month at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 3 months, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. 4/6
[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 B.N.S.
05.06.2026 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10237 of 2026 Date : 05/06/2026 6/6