Soundharrajan Vs State by Inspector of Police

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.387 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.10.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 103, 109, 115(2) and 49 of BNS in Crime No.387 of 2025, registered on the file of the

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

The allegation against the petitioners is that they, along with other accused, went to the dam area under the pretext of fishing and attacked the deceased and the defacto complainant with an aruval, causing grievous injuries. As a result of the said attack, the deceased succumbed to the injuries, while the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioners.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this is the case of previous enmity and that the petitioners have falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the occurrence allegedly took place during night hours and that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 12.10.2025. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶19

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that two persons were attacked by the petitioners, in which one aged person died on the spot and the other sustained injuries and was later rescued by persons who visited the dam area. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶20

Earlier, this Court dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.34772 of 2025 dated 18.12.2025 on the following grounds:

¶21

“ Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on

¶22

either side and the fact that the petitioners allegedly attacked the

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

deceased and the defacto complainant with an aruval, causing grievous injuries that resulted in the death of one person while the other was discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the view that at this stage, if the petitioners are granted bail, they may indulge in similar activities. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.”

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused/V.Periyasamy was granted bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.35579 of 2025 and therefore, sought bail for the petitioner.

¶27

Though the said co-accused was released on bail by this Court, it is to be noted that his name did not find place in the FIR and he was implicated only on the basis of the confession statement of the arrested accused. Hence the same ground is not applicable to him. Further, the investigation is still pending, hence I am not inclined to reconsider the order of dismissal.

¶28