Thiyagarajan Vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.578 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.B.Motcham For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraj Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 103 and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, subsequently altered to Sections 115(2), 351(3), 103, 109(1), 238 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

¶16

in Crime No.578 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.17496 of 2026

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that, owing to a verbal altercation which escalated into a quarrel, the petitioners, along with the other accused, chased the deceased in a vehicle and ran over them, resulting in the death of two persons. Hence, the case.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in custody since 04.06.2026 and that, in any event, their further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners were instrumental in the commission of the offence. He would further submit that, though the petitioners had no previous enmity with the deceased, the first petitioner was the host of the birthday party where the occurrence originated and that the petitioners had harboured the other main accused after the occurrence. It was further submitted that the investigation is still pending and that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of their tampering with witnesses.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.17496 of 2026

¶26

Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

¶27

Side) that the investigation is still pending, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioners, and also

¶28

the allegation that the petitioners had harboured the main accused after the occurrence, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.

¶29