High Court · 2025

CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTReserved on : 23.04.2025Pronounced on : 29.04.2025COROMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025Bharath Vignesh Kumar... Petitioner / Accused No.3Vs.The State represented byThe Inspector of Police,SIPCOT Police Station,SIPCOT, Tuticorin.(Crime No.289 of 2023)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant bail to the petitioner in thecase in S.C.No.72 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, MahalirCourt, Tuticorin, in connection with Crime No.289 of 2023 on the file of therespondent-police. For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 20.03.2025under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying togrant bail to the petitioner.2. The petitioner/Accused No.3 was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 04.11.2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,452, 302, 506(2), 120B, 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.289 of2023 on the file of the respondent-police. After investigation, the charge sheet hasbeen filed and the same was taken on file by the learned Sessions Judge, MahalirCourt, Tuticorin in S.C.No.72 of 2024.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a daily wagelabourer, and his wife is employed in a supermarket. Their son is working in aprivate company, and their daughter is pursuing her degree while residing with thedefacto complainant’s brother-in-law. The defacto complainant’s son was in lovewith a girl named Karthiga, daughter of Muthuramalingam. The defactocomplainant approached Karthiga’s parents with a marriage proposal on behalf ofhis son, but the proposal was rejected by them. On 30.10.2023, the defacto2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025complainant’s son arrived with Karthiga, and subsequently, the defactocomplainant went to their native place, Kovilpatti, where the marriage between hisson and Karthiga was solemnized. Thereafter, Karthiga’s maternal uncle contactedthe defacto complainant, demanding that Karthiga be returned to them. However,Karthiga refused to go back. With time, the situation seemed to have normalized,and the defacto complainant relocated to Tuticorin to lead a peaceful life. Uponlearning this, the accused persons began monitoring the movements of the defactocomplainant and his family. Hoping for a peaceful resolution, the defactocomplainant attempted to initiate a dialogue with Karthiga’s parents. However,shockingly, on 02.11.2023, the accused persons unlawfully trespassed into thedefacto complainant’s residence, where he was present with his son and daughter-in-law, and brutally assaulted both of them in his presence. Tragically, both his sonand daughter-in-law succumbed to the assault and died on the spot. Hence, the case.4. Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committedany offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the chargesheet has been filed by the respondent-police and cognizance has been taken by thecompetent court. The delay on the part of the respondent-police in completing the3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025investigation, and the consequent burden upon the trial court, has severely affectedthe petitioner’s constitutional right to life and personal liberty guaranteed underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that, except for thepetitioner, all the other accused have been granted bail either by this Court or bythe Trial Court. Though there are a few criminal cases pending against thepetitioner, he has been co-operating with the proceedings and has not deviated fromthe terms imposed. He further submitted that in this case charges were framed on20.09.2024 and the case is posted for the trial and, therefore, there is no possibility ofthe trial being completed in the near future. He also submitted that the petitioner isready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court.Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. In support of his submissions,he relied on the following judgments:-(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India-vs- K.A.Najeeb in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021 (Arising out ofSpecial Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11616 of 2019)(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Javed GulamNabi Shaikh -vs- State of Maharashtra and Another in CriminalAppeal No.2787 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No.3809 of 2024)4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025(iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahipal -vs-Rajesh Kumar and Ors. reported in MANU-SC/1677/2019.(iv) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in PrabhakarTewari -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020)11 SCC 648.(v) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in BalwinderSingh -vs- State of Punjab and Another in Petition(s) for SpecialLeave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8523 of 2024.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submitted that the petitioner andothers committed double murder. He further submitted that there are 8 previouscases against the petitioner, out of which one relates to the offences punishableunder 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and another case relates to the offencespunishable under 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He further submits that at thisstage, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will cause threat to thedefacto complainant and will also abscond, thereby delaying the trial proceedings.Accordingly, he strongly opposes to grant bail to the petitioner. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 20256. Heard on both sides and perused the records.7. The earlier bail application in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21535 of 2024 was dismissedon 18.12.2024. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- “2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the charges havebeen framed and the case is now posted for trial on 27.01.2024. 3. Considering the fact that the case involves honour killingwhere the sister of the petitioner and the boy were done to death andalso taking note of the fact that there are 8 previous cases against thepetitioner, out of which, one case is under 302 of IPC and another caseis under 307 of IPC, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioneron bail at this stage. There must be some progress in the trial andatleast the eye witnesses should be examined and thereafter, thisCourt will consider granting bail to the petitioner. 4. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed for thepresent.”8. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner, along with others,brutally attacked the couple with aruval and murdered them in front of the defactocomplainant only for the reason that they loved each other and married.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025Furthermore, it is noted that the petitioner has eight previous criminal casesregistered against him. In these circumstances, if bail is granted, there is a real andimminent possibility that the petitioner may cause threat to the defacto complainantand other prosecution witnesses. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, asthey are distinguishable on facts. In view of the serious nature of the offenceallegedly committed by the petitioner, and considering his specific role in the crime,this Court is of the opinion that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate.There is also a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner may abscond, therebycausing delay in the trial proceedings. For the above reason and as the trial is still ata premature stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at thisjuncture.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 29/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I/ II /III/ IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. pal 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.5363 of 2025To1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court, Tuticorin.2.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, MADURAI.3.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, SIPCOT, Tuticorin.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s. NIRANJAN S.KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-29428[F] dated 30/04/2025) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5363 of 2025 Date :29/04/2025 VN/13.05.2025 8P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8