Ravichandran v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12342 of 2026 Ravichandran

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dhalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.204 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj 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. 204 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 288, 125(b), 106(1) of BNS and Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act in Crime No.204 of 1/6

2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2026 on inspection the defacto complainant found that the petitioner along with other accused persons manufacturing fuse/thread materials used for fireworks in the land belongs to the petitioner, without any valid permission and in violation of Rules. During the course of such activity, an accident was also happened. In which several persons sustained injuries. One female worked alleged to be died. Others were admitted the hospital. 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 and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is only the owner of the land. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The petitioner is only landlord. A1 was running the fire works factory and the petitioner has given compensation of Rs.11 lakhs to the family of the deceased. The petitioner has no previous case. Two injured persons still in hospital in serious condition. 2/6

Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to 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 on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner,even according to the prosecution this petitioner is only landlord, A1 is only running the fire factory works and the petitioner has already given compensation of Rs.11 lakhs to the family members of the deceased, the petitioner has no previous case and considering the age and 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, Rajapalayam, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders:

3/6

[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 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 25.06.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Dhalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.204 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12342 of 2026 Date : 25.06.2026 6/6