Sadaiyandi vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2580 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2580 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Sadaiyandi vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police on 14 May, 2026

                                                                           CRL OP No. 12477 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 14-05-2026
                                                       CORAM
                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                               CRL OP No. 12477 of 2026

                1.Sadaiyandi
                2.Poongavanam

                                                                                 ..Petitioner(s)
                                                          Vs
                State rep by the Inspector of Police,
                Arakandanallur Police Station,
                Villupuram District
                Cr.No.74 of 2026
                                                                               ..Respondent(s)

                Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., to
                enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.74 of 2026 on the file of the respondent
                police.


                              For Petitioner(s):       Mr.M.Udayavani

                              For Respondent(s):       Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                        ORDER

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

10.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 194(1) of BNSS and

subsequently, altered into Sections 103(1), 238, 49, 61(2) of BNS in Cr.No.74

of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

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

2. The case of the prosecution is that the A1 was previously in a love

relationship with the deceased, and thereafter, she ended the relationship and

developed an affair with A2. Since the deceased allegedly insisted her to marry

him, A1 along with other accused, is said to have conspired and attacked the

deceased with knives, resulting in his death. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the

petitioners are under judicial custody since 10.03.2026. He submits that the

petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution as they are only the friends of A1. Therefore he

prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that A1

along with other accused brutally attacked the deceased with knife. He further

submitted the overt act against the petitioners herein is that they have harboured

A1. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

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

6. Considering the rivals submissions made on both sides, the nature of

offence and the fact that the petitioners were not named as accused in F.I.R and

that even according to the prosecution, the allegation as against the petitioners is

that they were harbouring A1 and also taking into consideration the age of the

petitioners, as well as the period of incarceration undergone by them, this Court

is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released

on bail on condition to execute a separate 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 District Munsif

cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur and on further

conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent

Police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to

the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, or of the

commission of which they are suspected;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial;

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

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law

as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 B.N.S.2023.

14-05-2026

Anu 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.

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

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvennainallur

2. The Inspector of Police Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram District

3. The Superintendent Villupuram Central Prison

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

__________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.DHANABAL, J.

Anu

14-05-2026

__________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis