Maharajan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Nanguneri

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Maharajan ...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station Tirunelveli District (Crime No. 143 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.SathyaChidambaram

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.143 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A11, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 351(3) of BNS and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act and Section 3 of IES Act @ 61(2), 191(2),191(3),296(b), 118(2),109(1), 103(2), 351(3), 238, 49, 118(1) of BNS in Crime No.143 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2026 while the defacto complainant who was working in his tea shop all the accused persons came in a two wheeler attacked some persons with aruval and caused injuries to them. Further they have also thrown petrol bomb towards the persons who came to prevent them and threatened them with dire consequences. Out of the above injured a person belonging to State of Orissa died on the spot and other four persons were admitted in the hospital for treatment. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that this petitioner was implicated as an accused based on the confession given by the co-accused and he is not at all present in the scene of occurrence. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that it is a case of retaliation murder in which two persons died and some persons are taking treatment in the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant 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 and also the fact that it is a case of triple murder and though investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed considering the nature and gravity of offence and even as per the prosecution there is a life threat to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶6Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J)

09.06.2026 aav

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station Tirunelveli District

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.10498oofo2026 P.oDHANABAL,oJ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaav oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o10498oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o09.06.2026