Gokulnath v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 8458 of 2026 Gokul Nath ... Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.75 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner: Mr.M.Karthick

Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 311 BNS @ 103(1), 190, 191(2), 310(3), 311, 49 and 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on

19.02.2026, the petitioner along with other persons, in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, unlawfully entered the cottage, consumed alcohol, created disturbance and wrongfully confined the deceased along with the caretaker and others in a room. Thereafter, the accused persons robbed the gold jewels of the deceased and brutally murdered him and absconded from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is a degree graduate and doing business. He is a son of Ex-service man and having reputed background. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused are close nexus with the deceased. The deceased in Chennai, A9 acted as attender. The defacto complainant having property in Kodaikanal. To grab the same, the accused joined together planned to commit murder, by stopping his breath by closing his mouth. Due to suffocation, he died. One Murali also died. All the 11 accused are present in the place of occurrence. Jewels were recovered and documents were also recovered from them. Investigation is in initial stage. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2026 only. The offences are henious in nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, that the investigation is in initial stage, as per the prosecution all the accused persons directly participated in the occurrence and earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and there is no change in circumstances in this case and considering the heinous nature of the offence, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J)

29.04.2026 vsg

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. eeeeeP.eDHANABAL,eJ., vsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e8458eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e29.04.2026