Kasi @ Prakash v. State Rep. by

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

22.04.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 194(1) of BNS @ Sections 324(2), 296(b) and 103(1) of BNS in Crime No.21 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner assaulted the deceased and committed the murder. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Information Report was initially registered on 15.04.2026 and the petitioner was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2026. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was not at all present at the place of the alleged occurrence and that he has been remanded to judicial custody merely on the basis of suspicion. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the de facto complainant is the father of the deceased and according to the prosecution, the deceased had relationship with the other accused and the present petitioner. Having knowledge about such activities, both of them had done away with the deceased. However, the death was stagemanaged to make it appear as a suicide. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering of witnesses. Page3 of 4

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

¶6While looking into the factual positions of the case, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2026 and according to the prosecution, the investigation is still pending. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would cause prejudice to the prosecution. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that it is not appropriate stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02-06-2026 VKR To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Polur.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

3.The Inspector of Police, Jamunamaruthur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o12000oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. VKR CRLoOPoNo.o12000oofo2026 02-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kasi @ Prakash ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Jamunamaruthur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.21 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.21 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Kavikannan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)