Rethinakumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Town West

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 15480 of 2026 Rethinakumar

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.332 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Dhiliban PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 332 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 21.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 232, 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.332 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant earlier lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein and thereafter, the final report was also filed. Since the trial process is started the witness summon was served to the defacto complainant. Hence, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant not to depose in the case. Hence, this present complaint has been lodged and the petitioner was arrested.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that though some previous cases are reported they are not for the serious offences. They are only put up cases. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 21.06.2026 and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner has 10 previous cases. Investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that since the petitioner threatened the witnesses, the present complaint was lodged and was arrested. He is a rowdy element. If he is released on bail, he will indulge in similar offences. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶6This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the nature of allegations, that this Court perused the list of previous cases, which reveals that majority of cases are petty offence and further some of them are under City Police Act Cases, 151 Cr.P.C. and 110 Cr.P.C cases etc., and also considering the period of incarceration, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall stay at Erode and report before the Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J)

27.07.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.332 of 2026)

3.The Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station, Erode.

4.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thanjavur.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 15480 of 2026 Date : 27.07.2026