Murali v. The Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

14.01.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 281, 125(a) of BNS 2023 altered into 281, 106(1) of BNS 2023 subsequently altered into 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 103(1) of BNS 2023, in Crime No.18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2026 at about 10.00 PM the deceased Kanikkairaj did not return to home, hence his wife contacted her brother-in-law and informed him about the non arrival of her husband. Meanwhile, one stranger came and informed that her husband was laying near Pudukottai rice mill. On receipt of intimation, her brother-in-law and her brother rushed the said spot and brought him home. On the next day i.e. on

12.01.2026 her husband did not wake up from bed. Hence, he was taken to Government Hospital, Tirupattur. After examination, doctor informed his wife that her husband went on Coma and for further treatment, they took him to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri. During the course of treatment, the deceased died on 13.01.2026. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent, has been falsely implicated in this case and has been in custody since 14.01.2026. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertakes not to tamper with the witnesses. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the accused having previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and at this stage, if the petitioners are released on bail, they may abscond and tamper with witnesses and hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was only a wordy quarrel after consuming liquor by them along with the deceased. In the wordy quarrel, the deceased fallen down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, due to injuries, he died. The prosecution strongly opposed that these accused have murdered the deceased and made the incident as if it is an accident. It is further submission of the learned Government Advocate that as against A1 / 1st petitioner, there are five previous cases and as against A3 / 2nd petitioner, there are three previous cases and the investigation is also in the nascent stage.

¶7Having considered the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

03.03.2026 mtl To

1.The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. C.KUMARAPPAN

,J.,

mtl Crl.O.P.No.5368 of 2026

03.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.5368 of 2026 1.Murali 2.Kumar ... Petitioners Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District. (Crime No.18 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.18 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)