Arumugam @ Arukutti v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Town East

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1.Arumugam @ Arukutti

2.Sivasakthi ...Petitioners/A1 & A3 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.86 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners:Mr.K.Navaneetharaja

For Respondent :Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A3, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 109 BNS, 2023, in Crime No.86 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 18.02.2026, the petitioners and other accused persons way laid the defacto complainant and attacked him with Sword and caused injuries to him. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

19.02.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that the first petitioner has eight previous cases and the second petitioner has three previous cases. As against the first petitioner, Goondas Act is initiated. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the nature of offence and the first petitioner was detained under Act 14 of 1982, this Court is declined to grant bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner alone.

¶7Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and though three previous cases are pending against the second petitioner, in all cases, he was released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the second petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanajvur, and on further conditions that: [b] the second petitioner shall report before

the

Inspector

of

Police, Kuzhithalai

Police

Station,

Karur District, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the second petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected; [d] the second petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the second petitioner shall not directly

or

indirectly

make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

the

learned

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the second petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the second petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the second petitioner/ accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J)

09.04.2026 vsg To

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanajvur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Kuzhithalai Police Station, Karur District.

4.The Superintendent, District Jail, Thanjavur.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e7054eofe2026 eP.eDHANABAL,eJ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e7054eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e09.04.2026