Suriya Prakash vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2019 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2019 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Suriya Prakash vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 20 April, 2026

                                                                             CRL OP No. 9591 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                  DATED: 20-04-2026
                                                       CORAM
                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
                                                CRL OP No. 9591 of 2026

                1. Suriya Prakash
                2. Saravana Kumar
                                                                                    ..Petitioners
                                                          Vs
                State represented by
                The Inspector of Police
                Eriyur Police Station,
                Dharmapuri District.
                (Crime No.64/2026)                                                 ..Respondent


                PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
                Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime
                No.64 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, pending investigation.


                              For Petitioner:          Mr.R.John Sathyan Senior Counsel
                                                       for Mr.Swami Subramanian

                              For Respondent:          Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
                                                       Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)

                              For Intervenor:          Mr.Mahamani


                                                       ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

27.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2),

118(1), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS corresponding IPC Sections 147, 148, 294, 323,

__________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

324, 506, 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No.64 of 2026 on the file of

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity arising out of

water business run by A1, the defacto complainant formed a group and

protested against the same. On 24.03.2026 at about 04.30 PM, while the defacto

complainant was in a bakery, the accused persons abused him in filthy language

and attacked him using hands, iron rod, soda bottles and chairs, causing injuries.

There is also a counter case registered at the instance of A2 against the defacto

complainant. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

the defacto complainant proclaims himself as a whistle blower and under that

pretext entered the residence of A1 and misbehaved with A1’s wife, which

resulted in the occurrence. It is further submitted that there was already a

counter case registered against the defacto complainant. The learned Senior

Counsel would further submit that even according to the prosecution, the

weapons used are only soda bottles and iron rod and the occurrence is not as

serious as projected. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been in

incarceration since 27.03.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the

petitioners.

__________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that if the

petitioners are enlarged on bail, there will be threat to the life of the defacto

complainant and that the defacto complainant sustained injuries on the head.

Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent submitted that the occurrence took place on 24.03.2026 and the

petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2026. It is further submitted that the injured has

been discharged from the hospital on 03.04.2026. It is also submitted that one of

the accused namely Suriya Prakash is a rowdy element having two previous

cases. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and

taking into account the long incarceration of the second petitioner since

27.03.2026, the fact that the injured person was discharged from the hospital on

03.04.2026 and that a major portion of the investigation has likely been

completed, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner subject to

certain conditions. However, considering that the first petitioner/Suriya Prakash

has two previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the first

__________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the second petitioner is alone 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 for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram, and subject to the following

conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their 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 their identity;

[b] the second petitioner is directed to stay at Coimbatore District and report before the Inspector of Police, E1-Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation before the respondent police;

[c] the second petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the second petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the second petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the second

__________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the second petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed insofar as the second Petitioner is concerned and dismissed insofar as the first Petitioner is concerned.

20-04-2026

NSL

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To: