Sathiyakumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sathiyakumar, S/o.Velayutharaja, South Anna Nagar Street, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District..
... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
Cr.No.237 of 2026..
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabha, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS 1/8
PRAYER :- C-8B. For Bail in Cr.No.237 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 305, 109 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.237 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an advocate practicing before the District Court, Srivilliputtur. On 06.05.2026, at about 12.00 noon, while the defacto complainant and other advocates were present in the office, the defacto complainant and a junior Advocate scrutinized the documents and advised the petitioner to furnish certain additional 2/8
documents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted him, pushed him down with an intention to cause his death and caused injuries, snatched away the documents entrusted by the Bank officials and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the intervener strongly opposed to grant bail on the ground that the petitioner brutally attacked the defacto 3/8
complainant and he sustained severe injuries and the petitioner has so many previous cases for similar kind of offences. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and the petitioner has seven previous cases, out of which, four cases ended into acquittal. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. 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, nature of offence, and considering the fact that the material part of the investigation might have 4/8
been completed and though the petitioner has seven previous cases, four of them ended in acquittal and in the remaining three cases, he was already released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 20.05.2026, 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Tricy, daily at 10.30 5/8
a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which 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 6/8
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) 19.06.2026 VSG TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur.
2.The Officer-in-Charge, Sub Jail, Srivilliputhur.
3.The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District.
4.The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
P. DHANABAL,J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10470 of 2026 Date : 19/06/2026 8/8