Jeya And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 105 of BNS in Crime No. 16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the petitioners are relatives and the deceased borrowed some amount from A1 and did not repay. On 08.02.2026, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the petitioners’ family members and the petitioners attacked the deceased and pushed him with hands, due to which he succumbed to the injuries. Hence the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the deceased and attacked him, which leads to the death of the deceased. Hence, he opposed to grant bail.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that on 08.02.2026, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the petitioners’ family members and the petitioners attacked the deceased and pushed him with hands, due to which he succumbed to the injuries. He would further submit that the petitioners have no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

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

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that even as per the prosecution, only based on the suspicious, the complaint was lodged and as per FIR, there is no eye-witness in this case and all the members of the his family are included in this case and there is no previous case as against the petitioners and also the material part of the investigations is already completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which they are suspected;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.