S.Saravanakumar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2671 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2671 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Saravanakumar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 20 May, 2026

Author: R.Vijayakumar

Bench: R.Vijayakumar

                                                                       CRL OP(MD). No. 9793 of 2026




                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                              Date : 20.05.2026

                                                  PRESENT

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

                                        CRL OP(MD). No. 9793 of 2026


                     1.S.Saravanakumar
                     2.S.Sathishkumar                    ...Petitioners/Accused-2 & 3
                                                    Vs

                     State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Jaihindpuram Police Station,
                     Madurai.
                     (Crime No. 216 of 2026 )            ...Respondent/Complainant


                                  For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sivaram
                                                 Advocate.
                                  For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
                                                 Additional Public Prosecutor


                           PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

                     PRAYER :-


                     1/7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          CRL OP(MD). No. 9793 of 2026


                         For Bail in Cr.No. 216 of 2026 on the file of the respondent
                     police.

                     ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded

to judicial custody on 17.04.2026 for the offences punishable under

Section 3 of Explosives Substance Act in Crime No. 216 of 2026 on

the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous motive,

on 12.04.2026 at about 12.30 a.m., when the defacto complainant

was sleeping at his home, the petitioners and other accused were

thrown liquor bottles in front of the door. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely

implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that they

have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

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

17.04.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

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

Section 3 of Explosives Substance Act in Crime No. 216 of 2026. He

would further submit that the petitioners have no previous case.

He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the

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

grant bail to the petitioners.

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 fact

that the petitioners have no previous case and also considering the

period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is

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

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 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 -IV, Madurai, and on further

conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the

respondent police on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until

further orders;

[c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial;

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].