Muthupandi @ Kulla v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 13876 of 2026 Muthupandi @ Kulla

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Austinpatti Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.70 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Paul Kanaga Raj for Mr.J.Ramesh

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 70 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.04.2025, for the offences punishable under Section 61(2), 191(3), 190, 126, 3(5), 253 and 103(2) of BNS, in Crime No.70 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, due to the previous enmity prevailing between the deceased and the accused, there was gang rivalry in the village. Due to that while the deceased was visiting his house, these petitioners, along with the other accused, attacked him with deadly weapons and committed murder. Hence, the case was registered, and the petitioner was arrested on

14.02.2025.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration for more than one year. He further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as an accused only on the basis of the confession statement. Though certain persons have been cited as eyewitnesses, they are not actual eyewitnesses, and their statements would reveal that they came to know about the occurrence only subsequently and had not directly witnessed the occurrence. He further submitted that, except the confession statement of the co-accused, no other material is available against the petitioner. He also submitted that the earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 08.06.2026 on the ground that there was a likelihood of life threat to the petitioner. However, all the other co-accused in this case, except two accused, have been granted bail, and they are regularly appearing before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the State (Criminal Side) submitted that, due to the gang rivalry, the city has witnessed several murders. He further submitted that, even recently, while A3 was being taken in transit from the Court to the prison, he was attacked and narrowly escaped. He further submitted that the investigation revealed that it is a case arising out of a group clash and that the defacto complainant's group had also attacked the accused. Hence, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of danger to his life. He further submitted that the petitioner is involved in 18 previous cases, including two other murder cases. He also submitted that there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.

5.This Court heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.This Court, while dismissing the earlier bail application in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.8546 of 2026, by order dated 08.06.2026, observed as follows: "6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and this is a case arising out of retaliation murder and considering the fact that the petitioner has so many previous cases and there is a life threat to the petitioner and considering the gravity of offence and also the fact that this court earlier dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner and there is no change is circumstances to consider the present petition for bail, this petition stands dismissed."

7.Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a change in circumstances, since the materials produced before this Court reveal that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and it is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to stay away from the place of occurrence, this Court finds that the entire merits of the case have already been considered while dismissing the earlier bail application. Further, the petitioner is having bad antecedents, and if he is released on bail, it will not only endanger his life but also lead to further retaliatory acts. Hence, this Court is not inclined to reconsider the earlier order.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

(K R S J)

24.07.2026 TM To

1.The V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Austinpatti Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.70 of 2026)

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 13876 of 2026 Date : 24.07.2026