Arunkumar @ Sampava Arun vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1993 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1993 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Arunkumar @ Sampava Arun vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 17 April, 2026

                                                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 7472 of 2026



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                                  Date : 17.04.2026

                                                      PRESENT

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

                                           CRL OP(MD). No. 7472 of 2026


                     Arunkumar @ Sampava Arun                        ...Petitioner/Accused-1
                                                        Vs

                     State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Muthaiahpuram Police Station
                     Thoothukudi.
                     (Crime No. 104 of 2026)                         ...Respondent/Complainant


                                    For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath
                                                     Advocate.
                                    For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
                                                     Additional Public Prosecutor


                           PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

                     PRAYER :-

                         For Bail in Cr.No. 104 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody on 03.02.2026 for the offences punishable under

Sections 296(b), 109(1), 309(4), 126(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and

Section 25(1A) of Arms Act and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act in Crime

No. 104 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with

other accused intercepted the defacto complainant and abused him in

filthy language, attempted to murder, demanded money and threatened

him with weapon and also damaged the house door. Hence the case.

3. The 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 this is the second bail application and in the

first bail application, this Court has given a liberty to file a fresh bail

application after the examination of material witnesses in previous cases

and now, examination of material witnesses is completed in the previous

cases. He would further submit that no one was injured in this case. He

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial

custody on 03.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the

defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 296(b),

109(1), 309(4), 126(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1A) of

Arms Act and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. He would further submit

that the petitioner has fifteen previous cases. He would further submit

that the material part of investigation is completed in the previous cases.

He would further submit that the investigation is pending in this case and

the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant

bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available

on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel

on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that nobody

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

was injured in this case and though the petitioner has fifteen previous

cases, the same are not similar in nature and in all cases, bail was granted

to the petitioner and also examination of material witnesses is completed

in the previous cases and this case is pending for investigation and there

is no possibility for trial in the near future and also considering the

period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined

to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial

Magistrate-II, Thoothukudi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent

police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 5560].