Arun Kumar Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9653 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.04.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9653 of 2026

¶6

Arunkumar, S/o.Shanmuganantham ... Petitioner Vs. The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chengalpet District. (Crime No.47/2026) … Respondent

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in crime No.47/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶11

18.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 85 and 108(1) of BNS, 2023 (498(A) and 306 of IPC) in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.9653 of 2026

¶15

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the deceased

¶16

were married on 30.11.2025. On 15.02.2026, the defacto complainant’s daughter died by hanging. Consequently, the defacto complainant alleges that the petitioner had cruelled and harassed the deceased by suspecting her. Hence, the present case has been registered.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor at ESI hospital and that he did not suspect his wife. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.03.2026 and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶18

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution and submitted that the marriage was took place on 30.11.2025, within 70 days, the victim died because of torture and suspicion of the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and the Revenue Divisional Officer’s enquiry is yet to be finalized. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/4

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.9653 of 2026

¶21

5. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case and on the

¶22

fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer’s enquiry is still pending, this Court is

¶23

of the view that, it is not an appropriate time to consider this bail application.

¶24

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.