Arunkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 11394 of 2026 1.Arunkumar 2.Vigneswaran 3.Venkatesh 4.Sivanesan 5.Kamalesh

...Petitioners

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Thanjavur District.

(Crime No.288 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.KR.Bharathi Kannan Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 288 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial 1/6

custody on 05.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 27(2) of Arms Act and Sections 61(2), 62 of BNS, in Crime No.288 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2026, on patrolling duty, the police officials found the petitioners along with other accused persons in suspicious manner. On enquiry, it reveals that the accused persons gathered there to plan a murder of one Mahalingam due to previous enmity. 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 and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. There was previous enmity between the parties. Due to which both are attacked each other. Therefore, already case and counter case has been registered. After filing of this petition, the petitioners were transferred to the District Prison, Pudukkottai. Now they are confined at District Prison, Pudukkottai. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the 2/6

respondent would submit that the offences are grave in nature. The 1st accused brother is eloped with one Mahalingam. Therefore, there was previous dispute between the accused persons and one Mahalingam. Hence, the said Mahalingam lodged a complaint. Thereafter there was quarrel between the parties. In which case and counter case have been registered. In the result of which, the accused persons planned to murder the said Mahalaingam in the occurrence place. At that time the respondent police round up them and arrested. The A1 has two previous cases, A2 has three previous cases , A5 has two previous cases and A6 has four previous cases. Investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of 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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioners, nobody was injured in this case, no complaint has been lodged by any public, though the prosecution stated that the petitioners have some previous cases, they are not similar in nature, in all those cases they have granted bail and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners this Court 3/6

is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, at 10.30 a.m., on every Monday for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation: [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 4/6

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 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) 17.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.288 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

7P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11394 of 2026 Date : 17.06.2026 6/6