Esakkimuthu v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 12571 of 2026 1.Esakkimuthu 2.Ponraj 3.Karthick Kumar

...Petitioners

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Muthiahpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.497 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.R.J.Karthick Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 497 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 custody on 02.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 49, 296(b), 1/6

109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.497 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners by joining with two other accused, attacked the defacto complainant and others, and attempted to commit murder, in which, the defacto complainant and two persons sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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. He would further submit that the petitioners are ranked as A1 to A3 and they are in custody from 29.04.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Now the injured were discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the first petitioner has five previous cases, the second petitioner has no previous case and the third petitioner has three previous cases. The injured was discharged from the hospital. He opposed the grant of bail to 2/6

the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners caused severe head injuries upon the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the nature of allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case and that though the injured was discharged from the hospital, considering that the first and third petitioners are having some previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the first and third petitioners. Accordingly, this petition stand dismissed as against the first and third petitioners.

8. As for as second petitioner is concerned, since he has no previous case, considering the period of incarceration and I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 3/6

condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[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 4/6

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.

(K R S J) 29.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi. 2.The Inspector of Police, Muthiahpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.497 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail at Perurani, Thoothukudi District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12571 of 2026 Date : 29.06.2026 6/6