Santhanakumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Koomapatty
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Santhanakumar ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Koomapatty Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
Cr.No.70 of 2026 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 70 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. 1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 308(4), 109, 324(4) BNS and 3(a), 3(b) of Explosive Substances Act in Crime No. 70 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.05.2026 at about 10.50 a.m., when the defacto complainant is going to open the TASMAC shop, the accused persons came there in a two wheeler and demanded beer. The defacto complainant replied that the Bar will be opened at 11.00a.m. Again at 11.00a.m., all the accused persons came and demanded Beer, for that, the defacto complainant replied that Beer will be given only to the members of the Club. At about 01.00p.m., all the accused persons abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and pelted country bomb on him and also damaged tube light worth about Rs. 200/-. Hence, the complaint.
2/7
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 co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and no one injured in the occurrence. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered against the accused persons. The petitioner has one previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3/7
6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of the offence and the fact that the coaccused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and further considering the fact that no one injured in the occurrence and though the petitioner has one previous case to his credit, he has already been granted bail in the previous case registered against him, 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vatrap, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
4/7
[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. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
5/7
[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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate. Watrap
2. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Virudhunagar
3. The Inspector of Police, Koomapatty Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL,J PNM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11254 of 2026 Date : 16/06/2026 7/7