Sridhar v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

1. Sridhar, S/o.Anandhan, No.81/7, Thagoor Street, Thiruvanaikovil, Srirangam Taluka, Tiruchirappalli District..

2. Karunakaran, S/o.Arumugam, 24, Kumaran Street, Keelakondayampettai, Thiruvanaikovil, Srirangam Taluka, Tiruchirappalli District..

... Petitioners/A3 and A6 Vs The State of Tamilnadu,Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

Cr.No.149/2026..

... Respondent/Complainant 1/7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathiyazhagan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-3B. For Bail in Cr.No.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A3 and A6, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2026 and 17.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 103(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioners is that on 24.03.2026, the petitioners joined with the other accused involved in threatening the deceased and also demanded money for the homosexual act done by the deceased in this case. Since he had not paid money, the petitioners joined and attacked him with a wooden log and aruval and caused his murder 2/7

and subsequently, buried his body after setting fire of the face. Subsequently, after two months the body was found in the place where it was buried, and skull and bones recovered. The police have conducted the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was also present at the scene of the occurrence and had murdered the deceased. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2026 and 17.05.2026 and no previous case is pending against the petitioners and there are no specific materials available on records against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for state of TN (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that originally an FIR was registered based on the complaint lodged by one Jeyaprakash. The investigation revealed that 3/7

the petitioners were also present in the scene of occurrence and the petitioners have no previous cases. However, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

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, nature of offence, and the petitioners have no previous cases and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners from 08.05.2026 and 17.05.2026, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, this petition is ordered and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli, and on further 4/7

conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the Inspector of Police, Sriperambathur Police Station, Kanchipuram District, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.; [c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself 5/7

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.

(K R S J) 29.06.2026 vsg TO 1.The learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Superintendent, District Prison, Trichy. 3.The Inspector of Police, Sriperambathur Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

4..The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10692 of 2026 Date : 29/06/2026 7/7