M.Ramesh vs State Of Of Tamil Nadu

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.10.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1), 296(b) of BNS, in P.R.C.No.01 of 2026, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the son-in-law of the defacto complainant and deceased herein is the son of the defacto complainant. The petitioner developed quarrel with the defacto complainant and also threatened him by showing knife. The deceased came there to question the petitioner and at that time, the petitioner stabbed the deceased and committed murder. Hence, the present case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.10.2025 and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the deceased continuously abused the petitioner, which provoked him. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation has been completed and the final report taken on file as P.R.C.No.01 of 2026. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the fact that the investigation has been completed and having regard to the manner in which the occurrence took place, in accordance with law, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi District and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix his photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure his identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;

[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.