Shanmugam @ Murugan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04/09/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Shanmugam @ Murugan, S/o.Rajaperumal ..Petitioner/ Sole Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Panayappatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

Crime No.81 of 2024) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.K.C.Maniyarasu Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.81 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/6

ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 103(1), 126(b) of BNS Act and 11(i), 12 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.81 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim is the daughter of the defacto complainant. The accused person followed her often and harassed her as if he fell in love with her and wanted to marry. The defacto complainant and her husband had rebuked the accused on the complaint of the victim. On 29.09.2024, around 7.30 p.m., one Manickam informed to the defacto complainant that her daughter was crying nearby petty shop. When she reached the place and enquired one Meena, she had informed that around 6.30 p.m., the Petitioner had came to the place of occurrence with one Balu. Seeing him the husband of the defacto complainant had stopped the accused and assaulted at his back. Hence, the Petitioner had stabbed the husband of the defacto complainant in his stomach and because of the attack his intestine came out and he died on the way to the hospital. Hence, the complaint. 2/6

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident and he is ready to co-operate with the respondent police. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 30.09.2024. Hence, he seeks bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim is the daughter of the defacto complainant. The accused person followed her often and harassed her as if he fell in love with her and wanted to marry. The defacto complainant and her husband had rebuked the accused on the complaint of the victim. On 29.09.2024, around 7.30 p.m., one Manickam informed to the defacto complainant that her daughter was crying nearby petty shop. When she reached the place and enquired one Meena, she had informed that around 6.30 p.m., the Petitioner had came to the place of occurrence with one Balu. Seeing him the husband of the defacto complainant had stopped the accused and assaulted at his back. Hence, the Petitioner had stabbed the husband of the defacto complainant in his stomach and because of the attack his intestine came out and he died on the way to the hospital. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:- 3/6

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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 Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that :- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai. [c] If the petitioner changes her residential address, he shall report the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai. [d] the petitioner shall report before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai as and when required for interrogation. [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 4/6

Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

sd/- 04/09/2025 / TRUE COPY / 04 /09/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( PA. I ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

rjr TO 1 The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.

2 The Superintendent, Central Jail, Trichy.

3 The Inspector of Police, panayappatti Police Station, pudukkottai District.

4 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.K.C.MANIYARASU, Advocate ( SR-9623[I] dated 04/09/2025 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13943 of 2025 Date :04/09/2025 NM/04.09.2025/ 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6