Mohamed Sathik Ali v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.07.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Mohamed Sathik Ali ... Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police, Thiruppullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.87 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.87 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.5, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.06.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 194 BNS @ 103(1) 1/4
BNS @ 189(2), 140(2), 296(B), 115(2), 118(1), 103(1) and 238 of BNS 2023, in Crime No.87 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail,
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the VAO. Based on information, the defacto complainant and his Assistant went to the occurrence place on 17.05.2025 at about 06.00 p.m., and found that an unidentified male dead body was lying in front of the Pandhalamuni temple Seashore. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that based on the confession of A1, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and there is no specific overt-act against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 01.06.2025. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that defacto complainant is the VAO. Based on information, the defacto complainant and his Assistant went to the occurrence place on 17.05.2025 at about 06.00 p.m., and found that an unidentified male dead body was lying in front of the Pandhalamuni temple Seashore. He further submitted that after investigation, it reveals that the petitioner along with other accused persons have attacked the defacto complainant. 2/4
Furthermore, there was a money dispute between them. He further submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may be abscond. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has committed serious offence and the investigation is at preliminary stage. Further, if enlarging the petitioner on bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation and considering the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. sd/- 10/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
msrm TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, (FAC) RAMANATHAPURAM. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 3/4
3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPULLANI POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11716 of 2025 Date :10/07/2025 AS/29.07.2025/4P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 4/4