Murugesan v. The State Represented By, Inspector of Police

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

24.06.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 103(1), 61(2) and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.179 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that there was a family dispute between A1 Yuvaraj and his wife, due to which she left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. It is alleged that A1, suspecting the role of the defacto complainant's husband, Balakrishnan, in the matrimonial discord, conspired with the other accused persons to eliminate him. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, A5 Karthik allegedly arranged contract killers and received a sum of Rs.19 lakhs from A1, out of which a portion was paid to A2 Ramachandran. Thereafter, A2, along with the petitioner/A3 Murugesan and A4 Aravind @ Appu, allegedly went to the place of occurrence, attacked Balakrishnan with a knife and caused his death, and thereafter informed A5 about the commission of the offence. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that except A2 and A3, all the other accused have already been enlarged on bail. It is his specific submission that the prosecution case rests only upon the alleged suspicion entertained by A1 against the deceased and, merely because the petitioner was acquainted with A1 and A5, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that this is a case of murder committed by engaging hired assailants and that the petitioner is one of the assailants who attacked the deceased. He further submitted that A1 had engaged A2 and the petitioner to eliminate the deceased for monetary consideration and that a sum of Rs.19 lakhs was paid pursuant to the conspiracy. He also submitted that the petitioner is involved in another criminal case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage and as many as twelve witnesses have already been examined. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail.

¶5Considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the fact that this is a case of murder allegedly committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy by engaging hired assailants for monetary consideration, the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner in attacking the deceased with a knife, the fact that the petitioner is involved in another criminal case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and also the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage with twelve witnesses already examined, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of his influencing the remaining witnesses and thereby affecting the fair conduct of the trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

15.06.2026 skr To

¶1The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholingur, Ranipet.

¶2The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶3The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr

24.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Murugesan ... Petitioner(s) Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.179 of 2025 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Arakkonam For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Kasirajan for Mr.M.Raja For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)