Sanmugam v. The Inspector of Police

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

25.04.2026 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118, and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, subsequently altered into Sections 103 and 296(b) of the BNS, in the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner assaulted the deceased, Ramachandiran, with an iron pipe on his head, causing him to sustain a severe head injury, after which the petitioner fled the scene. The deceased was rushed to the hospital, and during the course of his treatment, the respondent police recorded a statement from the defacto complainant. Based on this statement, the initial case was registered. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to his injuries and died. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and is not connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on 25.04.2026, the petitioner was arrested on the same day, and since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has also been filed, the counsel prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioner committed a pre-planned murder by brutally assaulting the deceased with an iron pipe. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2026, and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, it would severely impact the upcoming trial proceedings and create a repelling effect in society. Page3 of 5

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

¶6Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel, this is a case of a pre-planned and brutal murder resulting in a loss of life. Though the charge sheet has been filed, releasing the petitioner at this juncture would likely jeopardize and impact the trial proceedings. In view of the extreme nature and gravity of the offence, the violent manner of the attack, and the potential repelling effect on society, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni Page4 of 5 To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri

2.The Superintendent, District Jail, Dharmapuri.

3.The Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o13463oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o13463oofo2026 08-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sanmugam ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri District. (Crime.No.59/2026) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner's on bail in Crime.No.59/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)