[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Samy vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 17 April, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No. 7478 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. 7478 of 2026
Samy ...Petitioner/Accused
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
(Crime No. 46 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyachidambaram
Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Cr.No. 46 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/A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 28.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 296(b), 109(1) and 326(g) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of
Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in Crime No.46 of 2026 on the file of
the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a
lorry driver and he has been working in Tarus lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-S2-AD-4749 belonging to Tamilselvan of Dharmapuri. The said
vehicle was engaged on contract basis for road work at Kollam, Kerala.
As part of his employment, the defacto complainant used to transport
baby jely stones from MARIS quarry situated south of Maruthamputhur
near Alangulam to Kollam, Kerala. On 27.01.2026 at about 01.30 a.m.,
after loading baby jelly stones from the said quarry, the defacto
complainant was proceeding in the above vehicle on the Mukkoodal
Maruthamputhur Road. When the vehicle reached about 50 meters west
of Sevalapperi Sudalai temple, the petitioner and other accused person
threw the burning bottle containing inflammable substance and the bottle
broke and caused fire injury on the body of the defacto complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, the complaint.
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 the petitioner's name is not mentioned in the
FIR and based on the suspicion, he has been arrayed as accused. He
would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 28.01.2026. 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 126(2),
296(b), 109(1) and 326(g) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, in Crime No.46 of 2026. He would further submit
that the investigation has been completed. He would further submit that
the petitioner has two previous cases. He would further submit that
earlier, the petitioner was detained under Act 14 as ‘Gundas’ and the
same was subsequently revoked. He would further submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 the
petitioner is not a named accused and the petitioner been arrayed as
accused only based on the suspicion and earlier, the petitioner was
detained under Act 14 as Gundas and the same was subsequently revoked
and though two previous cases are pending against the petitioner, he was
released on bail 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Alangulam, Tenkasi, 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
(P D B J)
17.04.2026
apd
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, Tenkasi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P. DHANABAL, J
apd
ORDER
IN
Date : 17.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
