Raja v. The State Rep by

ORDER The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

27.11.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 106(1), 61(2), 281, 103(1) of BNS, in Crime No.380 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that they are arrayed as A1 and A2 and are brother and sister, and that the deceased is a close relative of theirs. It is alleged that the deceased owned certain properties and that, with a view to obtaining the insurance claim of the deceased, the accused staged a car accident by intentionally hitting the deceased with a car while he was on the road. The complaint was initially registered as an accident case. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the occurrence was a pre-planned murder allegedly committed by A1 to A3. Hence, the complaint was lodged and the petitioners were arrested.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the names of the petitioners do not find place in the FIR and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioners have not involved in any other offences and that they have been in judicial custody since 27.11.2025. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that, at the time of occurrence, A1 and A2 were in the car and that, after committing the murder of the deceased, a complaint was lodged portraying the incident as a motor accident. He further submitted that the petitioners committed the offence not only with the intention of usurping the property of the deceased but also to obtain insurance compensation. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

¶6Considering the nature and gravity of the offences, the motive behind the murder, and the fact that the act was allegedly committed not only as a pre-planned murder but also with the intention of obtaining huge money as compensation, this Court not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

27.01.2026 drl To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J. drl Crl.O.P.No.1673 of 2026

27.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.01.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.1673 of 2026 1.Raja 2.Sarathkumar ... Petitioners -vs- State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.380 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.380 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *********