Periya Karuppasamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

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

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Periya Karuppasamy ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Mallanginar Police Station, Virudhunagar District (Crime No. 91 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police...

For Petitioner : V.Muthumani, 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 15.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, @ 296(b) and 103(1) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner married the daughter of the defacto complainant against the defacto complainant and and her husband's wish. Due to that enmity, on 08.04.2026, the defacto complainant and her husband went to the petitioner's house and made quarrel with the petitioner's brother and mother. At that time, the brother of the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant's husband with a wooden log on his head and caused blood injury. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar and thereafter, shifted to Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment. However, he succumbed to the injuries. 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 2/6

and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner's name was not found in the FIR and even as per FIR, on the date of occurrence, A1 alone attacked the deceased with a wooden log and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2026. 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 between the parties, the brother of the petitioner attacked the husband of the defacto complainant and caused death to him and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against 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 3/6

on either side, nature of offence, and there is a family dispute between the parties and the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR and even as per FIR, on the date of occurrence, A1 alone attacked the deceased with a wooden log and no whisper about the name of the petitioner in the FIR and no previous case is pending against the petitioner 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, Karaikudi, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., in all working days 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 4/6

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 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 P.DHANABAL,J DSS 5/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Mallanginar Police Station,Virudhunagar District.

3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Virudhunagar. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10953 of 2026 Date : 12/06/2026 6/6