Dismissed¶¶27

Muthupandian v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Chinnakovilankulam

Madras HC17 Jul 2025CRL OP(MD)/12043/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused/denied; CRL OP(MD) No.12043 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice P.VADAMALAI; 17.07.2025; bail petition under Sec.483 of BNSS; offence punishable under Sections 194 of BNSS @ 103(1) of BNS; Crime No.222 of 2025; Chinnakovilankulam Police Station, Tenkasi District; petitioner Muthupandian, sole accused, husband of deceased; judicial custody since 14.06.2025; alleged strangulation and hanging of wife staged as suicide by hanging with saree; investigation at preliminary/initial stage; risk of absconding; bad antecedents; Criminal Original Petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Court considered that the petitioner had committed a serious offence and that the investigation was at a preliminary stage. ¶¶26

Muthupandian Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.12043 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 17.07.2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.12043 of 2025

¶8

Muthupandian ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶9

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Chinnakovilankulam Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.222 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶13

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis on 14.06.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 194 of BNSS @ 103(1) of

¶17

1/4

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.12043 of 2025

¶19

BNS, in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail,

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2025 at about 04.30 p.m., the deceased's daughter informed to the defacto complainant stating that her mother committed suicide by hanging. Further, the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the respondent and the same was investigated by the respondent police, it reveals that the petitioner had strangulated the neck of the deceased and hanged her with the help of the saree. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and they having two children and he is 50% disability person. He further submitted that the deceased had eloped with one Sathish 4 years ago and she was staying at Trichy. He further submitted that the petitioner advice the deceased and stayed with her for the welfare of the children's future. At this juncture, the deceased creating reels and Tik Tok videos sharing in the social media, hence, the petitioner warned the deceased on 12.06.2025 and he left from home. Thereafter, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

2/4

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.12043 of 2025

¶24

further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 14.06.2025. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that due to some dispute, the petitioner had harassed the deceased and strangulated the neck and murdered her. He further submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. If he released on bail, he may be abscond. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has committed serious offence and the investigation is at preliminary stage. Further, if enlarging the petitioner on bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation and considering the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27