D.Ram v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thilagar Thidal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL D.Ram ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal, Law and Order Police Station, Madurai. Crime No. 503/2025..
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Ms.S.Vijaya Shanthi For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- To enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 503/2025 on the file of the respondent police, pending as S.C.No. 410/2026 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 194 of BNS later altered into 103(1), 238, 239, 240 of BNS and 4 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.503 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the son of the deceased Kalyani. It is alleged that on 17.12.2025 around 08.27 p.m., the defacto complainant received a phone call from his mother, who was working as Senior Branch Manager in LIC, West Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai. While the defacto complainant attending the call, he heard her voice asking some one to call the police. Immediately the defacto complainant rushed to the office, where he found a crowd of police and noticed smoke from the premises. Thereafter his mother brought out on a stretcher had sustained injury and taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where she was declared as dead. Later on investigation it is came to know that due to 2/7
previous enmity with his higher official, the petitioner, who is the Assistant Administrative Officer, set fire to the office while the deceased was alone inside. As a result, the deceased was burned 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. He would further submit that this is the second bail petition and in this case investigation has already been completed and charge sheet also filed before the concerned Court. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner set fire the office of the deceased when she was in alone in the office to commit murder, Though the petitioner has no previous case and charge sheet also filed before the concerned Court, considering the nature of grave offence, he 3/7
strongly 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, the nature of the offence and the fact that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and taken on file as SC 410 of 2026 on the file of Mahila Court, Madurai and further considering the fact that the petitioner has no previous cases to his credit, as well as 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, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and 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.II, 4/7
Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the Mahila Court, Madurai 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 him 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. 5/7
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) 16.06.2026 PNM TO
1. The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai
3. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
5. The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal, Law and Order Police Station, Madurai.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL,J PNM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11161 of 2026 Date : 16/06/2026 7/7