Sandeep v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Arumanai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sandeep ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No. 77 / 2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sonu For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 77 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 324(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS @ Sections 329(4), 324(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 105, 351(3) of BNS @ Sections 329(4), 324(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 103 and 351(3) of BNS of BNS, in Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. Due to matrimonial dispute, they started to live separately. During the separation, the defacto complainant got acquainted with the deceased and they started to live together. On 05.04.2026 at about 05.30 p.m., the first accused along with the other accused persons knocked the door of the house, abused them with filthy language, assaulted them using a iron rod, wooden log and hands and also damaged the window glasses and intimidated them with dire consequences and left the place. Without responding to the 2/7

treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the present case has been registered.

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 he is not a named accused in the FIR and based on the confession of co-accused, he has been roped as accused in this case. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.04.2026. 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. He would further submit that though the material part of investigation has been completed, considering the nature of grave offence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/7

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, the nature of the offence and the fact that the petitioner is not a named accused as per FIR and he has been roped in the case based on the confession of co-accused and that material part of investigation has already been completed and also considering the fact that according to the prosecution, the main allegation is against the first accused, as well as taking into account of 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, and on further conditions that:

4/7

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent 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 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai

2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District.

3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nagercoil.

4. The Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanniyakumari District.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J PNM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11290 of 2026 Date : 16/06/2026 7/7