Senthil @ Chinnasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vengamedu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Senthil @ Chinnasamy ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Vengamedu Police Station, Karur District.(Crime No. 125 of 2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M. Ragul, For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 125 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 127(7), 138, 142,351(3) of BNS @ 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(2), 127(7), 138, 142, 351(3) and 103 (2) of BNS in Crime No.125 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased is doing real estate business and due to his business he used to visit Karur often. In these circumstances on 27.04.2026 the uncle of the defacto complainant viz., Ramesh contacted the defacto complainant andtold him that himself, the father of the defacto complainant, viz Pushparaj, Edvin babu, Raja and Elangershwaran Balaji came to Karur for their business and he told him that the accused came there and they threatened the father of the defacto complainant and others and on the same day at about 3.00 pm., the accused have kidnapped the father of the defacto complainant and on the same day the defacto complainant received a call from the mobile phone of his father and the accused have told the defacto complainant that they have kidnapped his father and 2/7

demanded him a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and to come to Sivagiri with a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- immediately. Thereafter the defacto complainant gave complaint regarding the above said fact and on the next day. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.04.2026 and the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to 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 35 previous cases. 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. 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 coaccused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and in this case, already material part investigation has been completed and further considering the fact that though the petitioner has 35 previous cases at his credit, most of the cases were registered for petty offences and not similar in nature and according to the petitioner, more than 10 cases were disposed of in the pending cases and he has already been granted bail in the remaining cases, 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 4/7

the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur 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 5/7

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) 25.06.2026 PNM TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur

2. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Karur

3. The Inspector of Police, Vengamedu Police Station, Karur 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.12447 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 7/7