Suresh @ Pallu Suresh v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD).No.9656 of 2025 Suresh @ Pallu Suresh, S/o.Durairaj, ..Petitioner/ Accused No.6 Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.140 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyekarthik Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanaga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/6
ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.6, who was arrested and remanded into judicial custody on 27.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b) & 109 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant's husband namely Nirmal has running gym and liquor bar. Earlier, due to one another dispute, her husband was arrested and remanded into judicial custody and later, he was enlarged on bail. On 25.06.2025, at about 13.30hrs when the defacto-complainant's husband was proceeded towards his house, from his bar by his two wheeler, the accused persons came in auto and they attacked the defacto-complainant's by using deadly weapons, he sustained grievous injuries and his hand was amputated. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are totally 11 accused persons involved in this case. This petitioner was arrayed as sixth accused. 2/6
This petitioner's name was not found place in the FIR. This petitioner is an uncle of the first accused, the respondent police called the petitioner to the police station, he went to the police station and the respondent police enquired about the whereabouts of the first accused. Since, the petitioner did not know about the whereabouts of the first accused, this petitioner could not able to inform about the whereabouts of the first accused. The respondent police did not permit the petitioner to leave from the police station. A false case has been implicated against this petitioner by the respondent police. This petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 27.06.2025, more than 27 days. Hence, he seeks bail.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the defacto-complainant's husband is the victim who sustained grievous injuries and amputated by the gruesome attack of the accused persons. In the result of the gruesome attack of the accused persons, the victim had sustained 23 cut injuries. The victim's left hand was amputate and his right leg was fractured. This petitioner so far spent more than Rs.20,00,000/- for his medical treatment. Now, the petitioner 3/6
has also facing life threat, some of the accused persons are not yet arrested by the respondent police. If the petitioner/accused No.6 is released on bail he will threaten and tamper the witnesses. Hence, he prays to dismiss the present bail petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are totally 11 accused persons were involved in this case. This petitioner was arrayed as Sixth accused. In this case, Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6 were arrested on 27.06.2025, Accused Nos.5,7 and 9 were surrendered and they are in judicial custody and the Accused Nos.8 and 10 were absconding. All the accused persons brutally attacked the defacto-complainant's husband, he had sustained 17 cut injuries all over his body, his left hand was amputated and his right leg was fractured. This petitioner is having six previous cases. In this case, Accused No.3 was enlarged on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board in Crl.MP.No.209/2025. The offences committed by the accused persons are grave in nature. If the petitioner released on bail, there is every possibility to threaten the witnesses and tamper the evidence. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note that it is the case of attempt to murder, the victim sustained 17 grievous cut injuries all 4/6
over his body and his left was amputated, considering the gravity of offence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
sd/- 23/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
GVN TO
1. The Officer Incharge, District Jail, Ramanathapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
3 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI, Advocate ( SR-7928[I] dated 23/07/2025 ) 5/6
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12017 of 2025 Date :23/07/2025 NM/19.08.2025/ 6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6