Allowed

Vanaraj v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Jul 2026CRL MP(MD)/10990/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted of abetting his wife's suicide under Section 306 IPC sought suspension of his seven-year sentence pending appeal. The court noted the incident followed a neighbour dispute and that the couple's three children were in his custody, suspended the substantive sentence and enlarged him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended pending appeal; petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, with monthly reporting and residence-change conditions.

Vanaraj Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026

¶7

in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶8

Vanaraj ... Petitioner versus The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by, the Inspector of Police, Kadamalaikundu Police Station, Theni District. ... Respondent

¶9

Petition filed under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by means of impugned judgment dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Sessions Court, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni District in SC.No.3 of 2021 and thereby enlarge him bail forthwith, pending disposal of the above criminal appeal.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sankarapandian, For Respondent : Mrs.V.Moushica, Government Advocate

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni District. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 25.02.2026, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A. (MD)No.670 of 2026 and the same was admitted by this Court on 12.06.2026. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed this petition to suspend the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

¶16

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife has committed suicide by self immolation due to some misunderstanding between the petitioner and herself. There was a civil dispute between the neighbour. On 28.01.2020, the deceased insisted the petitioner to intervene and to settle the matter, for which the petitioner abused the deceased and she has committed suicide. The learned Counsel further submits that the

¶17

2/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶20

marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnised 14 years before the occurrence and they are having 3 female children and they are under the custody of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks bail.

¶21

3.The learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner is an alcoholic, abused the deceased and therefore, on frustration she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her. The learned Government Advocate further ascertaining the averments made by the petitioner submits that the children are with the petitioner.

¶22

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶23

5.The petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 306

¶24

IPC that the petitioner has driven the deceased to commit suicide. The incident has taken place after 14 years of the marriage and they are having 3 children. The petitioner has made out a case that the deceased had some quarrel with neighbours with regard to the construction and she insisted the petitioner to intervene in that matter. When the petitioner has refused, she committed suicide. The petitioner has raised certain grounds, which can be considered during the

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶28

final hearing of the appeal. However, the appeal could not be taken up immediately for final hearing. The petitioner is in jail from the date of conviction. Therefore, this court is inclined to suspend the sentence.

¶29

6.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni District. In addition,

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall report before the trial court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 am.

¶31

(ii)If the petitioner changes his residence, it shall be informed to the respondent police immediately.

¶32

(iii)If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the respondent police shall move an application to cancel the order of suspension of sentence of imprisonment.

13.07.2026

DSK

4/6

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

¶37

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶38

¶39

1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni District.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadamalaikundu Police Station, Theni District.

¶41

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶42

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶47

DSK

¶48

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10990 of 2026 in Crl.A.(MD)No.670 of 2026

¶49

13.07.2026

¶50

6/6

¶51

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

Vanaraj v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanaraj v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Senthil Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul West Town

V.Thangapandi Vs Dr.Atul Anand

M.Pandi @ Pandiyan Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Vijay @ Kuruvi Vijay Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Anna Nagar

S. Elangovan Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Trichy, v and Ac

Lenin Gilittus Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Asaripallam