Manokar Vs The State Rep.by

Manokar vs The State Rep.by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1450367

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1450367
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/11059/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manokar

Respondent

The State Rep.by

Excerpt

.....file of the respondent. for petitioners : mr.p.muthamizhselvakumar for respondent : mr.s.vinoth kumar government advocate(crl.side)orderthe petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.03.2026 for the alleged offence under sections 296(b), 127(2) & 351(2) of bns act in crime no.73 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were illegallyselling liquor in the black market. when the same was questioned by the deceased, the petitioners along with one other person attacked the deceased, as a result of which he died. hence, the present case has been registered.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted thatthere are totally 3 accused in this case. the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. he would further submit that the petitioners had only pushed the deceased, due to which he fell down, and thereafter, they left the place. on the next day, owing to his pre-existing, health condition, the deceased developed chest pain and subsequently died. he would further submit the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 06.03.2026 and they are 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 petitioners.4.the learned government advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the first accused is illegally doing liquor business and it was informed to the police by the deceased. therefore, the first accused along with others murdered the deceased. he further submitted that the investigation is still pending. therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.5. heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.6. it is seen that the first accused is doing liquor business.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
1.Manokar 2.Arunraj ..Petitioners Vs. State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Veliyappam Police Station, Nagapattinam District ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in crime No.73 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate(crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(B), 127(2) & 351(2) of BNS Act in crime No.73 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were illegally

selling liquor in the black market. When the same was questioned by the deceased, the petitioners along with one other person attacked the deceased, as a result of which he died. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

there are totally 3 accused in this case. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners had only pushed the deceased, due to which he fell down, and thereafter, they left the place. On the next day, owing to his pre-existing, health condition, the deceased developed chest pain and subsequently died. He would further submit the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 06.03.2026 and they are 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 petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the first accused is illegally doing liquor business and it was informed to the police by the deceased. Therefore, the first accused along with others murdered the deceased. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen that the first accused is doing liquor business illegally

without any licence i.e. without permission. It was informed to the authority concerned by the deceased. Therefore, the first accused along with others planned to do away the life of the deceased and as such, they murdered the deceased. That apart, the investigation is still pending. Considering the same and also the nature of the offence committed by the accused, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 30.04.2026 lok To 1.Inspector of Police, Veliyappam Police Station, Nagapattinam District 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok Crl.O.P.No.11059 of 2026 30.04.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Manokar vs The State Rep.by Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan