Srikanth v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kallidaikurichi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Srikanth ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Kallidaikurichi Police Station, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

Crime No. 330 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 330 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Thiruvadi Kumar A, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to 1/6

judicial custody on 21.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.330 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant married the sister of the petitioner against the petitioner's wish and even after birth of two childeren, due to misunderstanding between the petitioner's sister and the defacto complainant, the petitioner's sister living along with the petitioner and his mother. Due to that enmity, on 20.05.2026, at about 11.00 a.m, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and when the same questioned by his mother, he also abused his mother and also attacked the defacto complainant with a knife with an intention to murder him. However, the defacto complainant escaped by moving aside. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit 2/6

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 nobody sustained injury in the alleged occurrence and the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that due to family dispute, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a knife. However, the defacto complainant escaped by moving aside and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 17 previous cases. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that nobody sustained in the alleged occurrence.

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 there is a family dispute between the parties and nobody sustained injury in the alleged occurrence and 3/6

though the petitioner has 17 previous cases, those cases are not a similar kind of offences and in those cases, he was released on bail and also 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 Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamuthiram, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

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 BNS.

(P D B J) 12.06.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamuthiram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kallidaikurichi Police Station, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P.DHANABAL,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10863 of 2026 Date : 12/06/2026 6/6