Soniya v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

31.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 189, 190, 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, due to previous enmity committed the murder of one Silambarasan. It is alleged that the Page2 of 4 deceased had earlier murdered the petitioners' brother and was released on bail, and therefore, the present occurrence is a case of revenge. Hence, the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the deceased himself was a rowdy element and had earlier murdered the petitioners' brother. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. Hence, he prayed for granting bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that this is a clear case of revenge murder, as the deceased had earlier murdered the petitioners' brother. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would strongly oppose the application on the ground that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is a likelihood of further attack and threat to witnesses. It is also submitted that the investigation is still in preliminary stage and releasing the petitioners at this stage would affect the prosecution case. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Page3 of 4

¶6This Court is of the view that from the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioners is that of a revenge murder arising out of previous enmity. Considering the gravity of the offence and the serious nature of the allegation, this Court is of the view that the matter requires thorough investigation. It is also seen that the investigation is at a preliminary stage. Further, taking into account the submission of the learned Government Advocate that there is a likelihood of further attack. Hence, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 18-03-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o7106oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o7106oofo2026 18-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Soniya 2. Swetha 3. Ananya ..Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station. Cr.No.24/2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending in Crime No.24/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioners: Mr.R.Ramesh For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)