[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sivapraveen vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 20 April, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No. 6034 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 20.04.2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
CRL OP(MD). No. 6034 of 2026
Sivapraveen
...Petitioner/Accused No.5
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Batlagundu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.91 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner:Mr.S.Poornachandran
for M/s.K.Thenrajan
For Respondent:Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Cr.No.91 of 2026 on the file of
the respondent police.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 6034 of 2026
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner/Accused No.5, who was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 23.02.2026
for the offences punishable under Sections
191(2), 192(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 109(1)
of BNS, 2023 @ 191(2), 192(3), 296(b) and 103(2)
of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file
of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the
defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased,
Rameshkannan. The deceased was engaged in running
a four wheeler mechanic shop near Batlagundu
Chidambaram Petrol Bunk. On 16.02.2026, a
monetary dispute arose between Mukesh and
Karthik. At that time, the deceased advised them
not to quarrel near his shop. Offender by this,
one Harish @ Petrol picked a quarrel with the
deceased, issued threats and left the place.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thereafter on 17.02.2026, at about 07.00 p.m., A1
along with other accused persons unlawfully
assembled with deadly weapons, abused the
deceased in vulgar language and forcibly took him
on their bike and assaulted him with dangerous
weapons. They inflicted multiple injuries on his
face, head, chest, back, hands and legs and
abandoned him near Sendrayaperumalkoil. Upon
receiving information, the defacto complainant
accompanied by her brother and Mukesh, rescued
the injured deceased and admitted him first at
Batlagundu Hospital. Despite receiving medical
treatment, due to the grievous injuries inflicted
by the accused, the deceased succumbed to death
on 23.02.2026 at about 05.00 a.m.. Hence, the
complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is an innocent
and he was falsely implicated in this case and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is no way connected in the above said incident.
He has not committed any offence as alleged by
the prosecution. He would further submit that the
co-accused was already granted bail by the trial
Court and the defacto complainant is not an eye
witness to the occurrence. The petitioner has
been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
23.02.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the
petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent Police would submit
the petitioner and other accused persons
unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons and
attacked him with dangerous weapons and thereby
caused injuries on all over the body and the
deceased succumbed to death. He would further
submit that the investigation is still pending
and the offences are grave in nature. Therefore,
he vehemently, opposed to grant of bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 even according to the prosecution,
the defacto complainant is not an eye witness to
the occurrence and the petitioner has been
arrayed as accused only on suspicion and the co-
accused was already released on bail by the
Sessions Court and according to the prosecution,
the petitioner assaulted the deceased with hands
and no weapons have been used by the petitioner
and the investigation is almost completed and the
period of incarceration undergone by the
petitioner from 23.02.2026, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject
to the following conditions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[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 Judicial
Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul
District, 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 she is accused, or suspected, or of
the commission of which she is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond
either during investigation or trial;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[g] If the accused thereafter
absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered
under Section 269 BNS.
(P D B J)
20.04.2026
vsg
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Nilakottai, Dindigul District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Batlagundu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent,Central Prison,
Dindigul District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL, J.,
vsg
ORDER
IN
Date : 20.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
