Dismissed¶¶27

Sivakami v. State by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jun 2026CRL OP/15762/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC dismisses bail petition (S.483 BNSS 2023) of woman accused Sivakami in Crime No.36/2026, Anakkavoor PS, Tiruvannamalai; BNS 2023 Sections 191(2), 191(3), 331(1), 296(b), 115(2), 103(1), 351(2); property/borewell dispute; arrest and judicial custody 07.06.2026; nascent investigation; bail premature; CRL OP No. 15762 of 2026; decided 23-06-2026 by C.Kumarappan, J.

What did the court decide?

The investigation is still at the initial stage; if the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage it may affect the course of investigation, and it is therefore too premature to grant bail. ¶¶26

Sivakami Vs State by, The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 15762 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 15762 of 2026

Sivakami

..Petitioner

State by, Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.36/2026.

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.36 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 331(1), 296(b), 115(2), 103(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.36 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

__________ Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 15762 of 2026

¶18

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2026, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that there was a dispute between the family of the defacto complainant and the accused persons regarding access to property and drilling of a borewell. It is alleged that during the course of the dispute, the accused persons threatened the defacto complainant and her family members. Subsequently, another quarrel took place near Ambal Jewelry Shop, during which one of the accused sustained head injuries. It is further alleged that the accused Vinoth damaged the two-wheeler of the defacto complainant and threatened her. Hence, the case was registered.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a woman and there is no specific overt act attributed against her. It is further submitted that she has been falsely implicated due to the family dispute between the parties. The learned counsel would contend that the allegations are omnibus in nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that according to the investigation, there is complicity on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation is still at the nascent stage and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would jeopardize the prosecution case.

¶21

Page2 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP No. 15762 of 2026

¶24

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

¶25

learned counsel on either side.

¶26

This Court is of the view that though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a woman and there is no specific overt act against her, the investigation is still at the initial stage. At this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, the same may affect the course of investigation. Hence, it is too premature to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27