High Court · 2025

CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 17/04/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025Shanmugapriya ... Petitioner/Accused VsThe State of Tamil NaduRep. by the Inspector of Police,Orathanadu Police Station,Thanjavur District.Crime No.113 of 2025 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh, Advocate for M/s.R.Ponkarthikeyan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.113 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 04.04.20251/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant bail.2. The petitioner/Accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on18.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 109(2) of Bharatiya NyayaSanhita (BNS), 2023 @ Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, inCrime No.113 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the daughter of thedeceased. The defacto complainant is the brother-in-law of the deceased, namely,Kamalakannan. The deceased married Rajeswari 25 years ago, and they were blessedwith a daughter, who is the petitioner herein. During the course of his employment,the deceased sustained an injury to his left leg eight years ago and was unable towalk thereafter. It is further stated that the deceased was a habitual drunkard andused to regularly quarrel with his wife and daughter. Due to this, the deceased hadbeen living separately in a rented house at Orathanadu for the past few years. Thedeceased was being taken care of by the son of the defacto complainant, namelyMurali, and one Palaniappan, who used to buy and provide food for him.Occasionally, the wife of the deceased would visit him and help him financially. On17.03.2025, Palaniappan went to deliver lunch to the deceased. Later, at around 07:00p.m., he went again to provide dinner. At that time, he found the door closed, and2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025upon opening it, he noticed that the deceased was struggling for his life withbleeding injuries. He was immediately taken to Orathanadu Government Hospital ina 108 ambulance and was later referred to Thanjavur Government Hospital, where hesuccumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know that thewife and daughter of the deceased (the petitioner) had visited him prior to theoccurrence. Therefore, he suspected that they might have assaulted the deceased andcaused the injuries which led to his death. Hence, the complaint.4. Mr.P.Suresh, for Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner, submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence andthat a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submits that thepetitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.03.2025 and is ready to abide by anystringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays forgranting bail to the petitioner.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-police, submits that the investigation is not yetcompleted. He further submits that the deceased is none other than the father of thepetitioner. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, she mayabscond, thereby delaying the investigation. Accordingly, he strongly opposes togrant bail to the petitioner.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 20256. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side. This Courthas perused records including the First Information Report and the confessionstatement of the accused. 7. The petitioner was arrested and has been in judicial custody since 18.03.2025.In this case, the petitioner is none other than the daughter of the deceased. A readingof the First Information Report and other documents shows that due to suddenprovocation, the alleged occurrence happened. Therefore, this Court is of the opinionthat further custody of the petitioner is not necessary for the Investigation Agency inthis case. To be noted, the above view is recorded only for the limited purpose ofdeciding the bail petition. The above view, in any way, would not cause anyprejudice to the rights of the prosecution in establishing its case during the trial.Further, the petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society.Therefore, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the same and alsoconsidering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court isinclined to grant an order of bail to the petitioner, however, subject to the followingconditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousandonly) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu;4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, shall obtain a copy ofany one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;(iii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu;(iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Orathanadu, daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders;(v) The petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond tobe executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;(vi) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of she isaccused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected;(vii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threator promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade herfrom disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with theevidence;(viii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and the witnesses; and(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025Magistrate, Orathanadu, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitionerin accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him aslaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13SCC 283].8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 17/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / 17/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSG To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu.2. Do through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur District at Kumbakonam.3.The Officer-In-Charge, Women Prison, Gandhi Market, Trichy.4.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.R.PONKARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-4373[I] dated 17/04/2025 )6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.6447 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6447 of 2025 Date :17/04/2025NBF/SAR/ (17/04/2025) 7P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from17/07/20237/7